That is funny, just like Reagan supporting criminal and undemocratic military governments in Latin America.
As for the need to prosecute past administrations when it is needed, I have to add here that if Nixon had not been pardoned I do think that people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would had been IMHO tainted in the following investigation and trials. And America would had avoided a lot of pain in the future by having guys like them out of politics forever.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/paths/
I am accepting ElvisL1ves’ premises and arguing from those.
Well, OK, but I don’t think you can state as unarguable that there was clear proof, sufficient for a court, that Bush was guilty and then ask what the Republicans would do in cases where there was not inarguable evidence. FWIW, I believe the Republicans would treat Obama pretty much as Obama treated Bush - they would not prosecute. Both because it is bad for the country, and because there isn’t clear cut proof of crimes. In both cases.
That’s the point - it is equally clear, or unclear, that Obama broke international law and that Bush did the same. In both instances, at worst, it is a gray area.
As far as Trump goes, specifically, I don’t know. He is an idiot, and therefore if he is ever elected (which God forbid) he might do something as stupid as attempt to prosecute Obama and/or Hillary. But he won’t be elected, IMO, and if he tries to prosecute, the Justice department will tell him exactly what I am saying - there isn’t enough evidence, and it isn’t clear that Obama violated any US law, and if Trump tries to go ahead anyway he will both fail and look stupid.
ISTM that any President, or either party, will do what has been done all along - absent any hard evidence, and without being able to point to a specific US law that was broken, you don’t try for revenge against your political opponents.
Regards,
Shodan
IOW, you are posting things you don’t believe in order to create disagreement?
So you are unfamiliar with the concept of accepting a set of premises and following them to their logical conclusion?
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
Except that you can’t respond to any criticism of your devil’s advocacy. If you can’t actually defend your argument, whether sincere or not, you’re following it to a conclusion that has been shown to be incorrect, without defending the substance of the proposition. Instead, you’re just repeating the same line over and over – “war is illegal!!” – as though you’re shooting free throws.
Like I said, you don’t seem to understand the concept of accepting a premise and arguing from it. Or perhaps you haven’t actually read what I posted.
Either way, :double shrug:
Regards,
Shodan
So I’ve cited the laws that prohibit torture. You claim a UN report says that drone strikes are illegal. I’ve posted the report. It does not say that drone strikes are illegal. It doesn’t actually say anything even close to that. Under “conclusions and recommendations,” it urges the US and other countries to investigate civilian deaths from drone strikes, and that’s pretty much it.
You’re accepting a premise that is a straw man and drawing incorrect conclusions that you don’t even bother to defend. When challenged, you just throw up more “war is illegal!” free throws.
It would be one thing if you actually put together a coherent, devils advocate sort of position that you can defend against criticism. But I’m pretty sure you’re just trying to imply that one particular poster is a liberal hypocrite.
Reviving this thread 8 months later…
Cut to June 2016, when Trump is actually the presumptive R nominee with a serious chance to win the general. A thought that was mostly dismissed way back in 2015. Not only has he clinched the nomination, but he has actually come right out and said he intends to prosecute Hillary. Color me unsurprised. I guess for better or worse, we may get to see where this change in Tradition takes the nation.
Who thinks he will stop at Clinton’s email? What are the odds we get an Obama prosecution? I half expect my idea of of a “Audit the previous admin” cabinet position to come true. Or I suppose Attorney General Christie will just be re-purposed to that effect.
As irreversibly and irrationally partisan as the country has become in the last few decades, this seems like a bold new threshold. It is starting to look like America can’t just get along after all.
This could just be the break Vince Foster has been waiting for!
CMC fnord!
Maybe we’ll finally get to see that incredible Birther evidence Donald is sitting on.
But yeah, I have no doubt that Donald has a lengthy little list, and that he will also want to prosecute any judges or prosecutors who don’t fall in line.
All right, calm down, everyone, after Hillary we have… can you hand me that list there? No, not that short one, that’s the MacKenzie and Childs list for the West Wing… the long form one, yeah yeah that one. Okay…
Mrs. Mabel Haverford, Teaneck, NJ – Her shitzu peed on my brand new shoes back in '09.
Charles Haverford, Teaneck, NJ – said some not very nice words they were not very nice at all when I kicked his dog, TOTALLY justified.
Muffy Anderson, Blumberfuque, MS – Her science fair project was about my hair. WHAT did I do to deserve that, I have been nothing but respectful to all young women even if they’re not hot like I’m sure Miss Anderson is but REALLY, my HAIR?
Tony Scalia, Washin… oh, never mind.
Arnold B., can the FBI find his last name? It’s just Arnold B. on his YouTube comments…