I’m not following you. Are you saying that Obama (or other democrats with the authority to do so) would like to charge Cheney with War Crimes, but are holding back for political reasons? What do you mean by “all-out partisan civil war”?
Yes. That is more or less their stated reason for doing so, and it is consistent with the facts, so I see no reason to doubt it. And it’s actually a decent reason. Even though such a prosecution would be entirely valid, it would do great damage to the fabric of our country because of the (false) perception of it being a political prosecution. It’s a tough call whether ignoring it does more damage or not.
And, not for nothing, it would probably mean every President gets charged with a crime until we stop doing things like killing American citizens without judicial process. Again, that may or may not be a bad thing, but it would be a big deal.
I mean the Republicans refusing to consider anything but impeachment resolutions, Republican governors arresting Democratic officials, etc.–everything you can do to fight a partisan battle without open violence.
People with the authority to do so have actually said that??? Who?
That was my first thought if we were trying to be consistent.
Yes. Obama and Holder, and their spokespeople, have all said repeatedly that the detainee interrogations were torture and illegal, but that low-level people would not be prosecuted for just following orders, and prosecuting high-level people would be too harmful to the health of the country and the President’s overall policy agenda. Which of those propositions do you want a cite for?
Sure. Again, I take the Obama Administration’s arguments about the political fallout seriously. I don’t think prosecuting Cheney et al. is an easy call. But those factors aside, I’d say give Cheney his day in court to explain why ordering torture was legal. I’m not saying conviction is open-and-shut. I’m saying there’s more than probable cause to prosecute and some doubt about Cheney’s potential affirmative defenses. And I’d say the same about Obama and some subset of drone strikes. There is a legal rationale for them. And it may win the day. But apart from the political fallout, I have no problem with that rationale being tested in court.
If a criminal prosecution would have too much fallout, then at least a civil suit. Something.
Kinda depends on which ghastly and wretched horror we are discussing. Is a war crime something that takes place during the conduct of an “ordinary” war situation but which conduct is so beyond the pale of “civilized” behavior that it is much worse than war itself? Japan’s experiments with and deployment of bacterial warfare in China leaps to mind.
But how about war conducted within the boundaries of “civilized” behavior, with due deference to civilian neutrality and limited collateral damage, but nonetheless initiated on false pretenses, or even openly vile motives, such as conquest? The war is itself a crime, but is it a “war crime”?
Dunno, the very question makes me heartsick, how do you impose a just penalty for one hundred thousand victims? But if I go to Hell for bad jokes and worse attitude, and Dick Cheney isn’t there, I’m going to sue. Shouldn’t be any problem finding a lawyer…
Usually this level of explode-in-the-OP’s-facery is in the Pit, wot?
This entire thread seems less like an invitation to debate and more like picking a fight.
As such, off to the Pit it goes.
The Iraq invasion itself was a war crime, given that it was not authorized by a UN resolution nor was it waged in self defense. That makes it a war of aggression. The fig leaf of self defense blew away once the inspectors were on the ground.
Obviously, nothing will ever come of that, especially given America and the UK’s positions on the UNSC…but you know, theoretically.
Oh, good, they’ve moved this to the pit. Magellan, you’re a fucking stooge.
But don’t you see; the more people who disagree with the OP, the more it proves his righteousness.
I truly don’t know if i’m a better investigative journalist than Bob Woodward.
I suspect, given his experience and his institutional support and his contacts, that he is probably better than me at unearthing hitherto-unknown information. That does not, of course, mean that he is always right, and nor does it mean that the conclusions he draws from his evidence are necessarily the correct ones, or even the ones most likely to be true.
One thing that i do know with absolute certainty is that i am a smarter and better and more honest analyst and interpreter of evidence than the OP of this thread.
Exhibit A, which confirmed for me not only the stupidity and dishonesty, but also the cowardice of the Doper in question. Start a thread, and then run away like a pants-wetting kid when you’re revealed to be nothing but a lying shill for the right wing of the Foxpublican Party.
Well, I’m sure he’ll be back to hurl a few insults.
Seriously, though. Hundreds of thousands of dead for an uncertain purpose, yet the main thing he’s concerned about is whether he can tag some message board posters as hypocrites. A decade after the fact.
If that isn’t the behavior of a flaming asshole, it’ll do until one comes along.
Woodward is wrong.
/thread
Exhibit B That shows how inept he is on figuring out if it is bullshit what they are feeding him. At least he is progressing and not using racist sites like VDARE, or stupid ones like the Washington Moonie Times any more, he seems to be more into more “mainstream” sites like FOX. But he is still swallowing a lot of bull.
magellan, Bush is still claiming Iraq had the capability to build a nuke, and even claimed we found a dirty bomb (we didn’t.)
Who’s a better journalist? Bush, or Bob Woodward?
This isn’t Schroedinger’s Cat were talking about here. We’ve opened the box and found out what happened to the cat.
We invaded Iraq and found out that there were no current WMD programs. So the people who said that were the people who were right.
And these people were making every effort to tell the Bush administration this before the invasion and show them the evidence. And let me repeat once again - this evidence was true.
So why didn’t the Bush administration look at the evidence? Was it because they didn’t want to know the truth?
It does appear there was intentional ignorance at work. The Bush administration chose not to look at all the evidence. They decided to only look at the evidence that Iraq had WMD programs. And that way they could tell the technical truth and claim that all of the evidence that they had looked at supported their beliefs.
And that’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that they did look at all the evidence and knew that Iraq had no WMD programs - but then chose to lie.
Me, clearly.
I report
- Republicans are sexually deviant Christian assholes.
- Religion is shit
- Gay marriage is not bad
What else do you need to know?
I still say that those unsure whether Cheney et al were outright liars or just confused dolts must not be familiar with the Joseph Wilson story.
To understand the perfidy of the Cheney-Rove Administration, it’s good to remember that Cheney was in effect directing his own intelligence agency and using it for decision-making. The CIA was just a lapdog.
One of the major casus belli was evidence that Saddam was attempting to purchase uranium from Nigeria. The CIA suspected that this was all a hoax (documents had been “discovered” by Bush allies, giving both sides deniability: MI6 and SISMI: “Hey, we just gave the documents to CIA and expected them to vet them”; White House: “Hey, we’re not responsible for incompetence of other intelligence services”). Respected diplomat and intelligence advisor Joe Wilson was dispatched to investigate and confirmed that the uranium purchasing was a complete hoax. CIA specifically asked the White House not to use the fraudulent documents as evidence; instead they were used as the strongest single piece of evidence that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons. (There were of course other related lies, e.g. the affair of the aluminum tubes).
Joe Wilson (whose story is told in the 2010 film Fair Game with Sean Penn) pondered the Bush lies and finally decided that his conscience required he write a letter to the N.Y. Times. Cheney’s response to that is one of the clearest single demonstations of his evil.
Wilson’s wife was a covert CIA agent. Rightwing hack Robert Novak broke her cover, possibly at the instigation of Cheney – this was a treasonous felony for which Cheney’s Chief of Staff went to prison. And the 15-minute network news soundbites switched from Bush Administration lies to the jailing of “liberal” media reporters for refusing to reveal their sources about the outing.
I’d ask Magellan, and others who doubt there is clear evidence that Cheney et al lied, by presenting documents known to be hoaxed, for their comments on the Wilson affair. Please try for something at least a little more intelligible than “Duuuh! I watched some right-wing shills on FoxNews. Yeeeup!”
Can anyone come up with a more blatant example of horrid evil by top leaders of the U.S. Government than the lies by Cheney and his puppet-clown Dubya that led to the War Against Gog and Magog, and the malicious destruction when Cheney got his filthy hands on all power in Iraq?
I didn’t think so. Yet it was the semen stain on Monica’s dress that turned into the huge national scandal. Those who vomit nonsense like “both parties are the same” are so laughably stupid it’s amazing that they’re toilet-trained.(*)
(* - Yes, idiots: that’s hyperbole. My dog is trained and his IQ is only 10 points higher than the average Republican voter.)
ETA: So Magellan: Have you even heard of Valerie Plame? I guess “Duuuh Woodward Woodward Woodward” is all you got. You’ve confirmed that you really are as pathetically stupid as you seem.
This.
Plus, let’s not forget that the ongoing horror of ISIS is also a direct result of this ‘enterprise’.
I can somewhat understand how people were brainwashed by the propaganda machine at the time, US Propaganda is just very good, but if today you are still making a case that this war was somehow ‘just a mistake’ or even justified, you are as much of a sociopathic swine as the perpatrators.