If Obama is a war criminal, would you support a Republican DOJ charging him?

[Drunken Irishman]

Cornel West brought up a good point - Obama is a war criminal. One thing that has been constantly advocated here on DU the last five years or so is the wish this White House would charge the Bush administration with war crimes. If Obama is just as guilty as Bush, as Cornel West says he is, would you support a Republican administration (or maybe Alan Grayson in 2017) charging Obama-Biden-Clinton-Kerry for war crimes?

Would you support imprisonment for life? What about putting them to death?

I'd just like to know where we stand here.

Thanks!

[Scurrilous]

1. ...

[Spider Jerusalem]

2. that's not something that would happen, whatever the circumstances

any prosecution for war crimes (of Bush, or Obama, or anyone else) would be brought by an international tribunal such as the International Criminal Court (the same International Criminal Court whose jurisdiction the USA...alone among Western democracies...doesn't recognise). The US isn't going to try or impeach a sitting or former president for war crimes, in the first place (the idea that it might happen is ludicrous), and in the second place any trial, in the US, of a sitting or former US president, for such crimes is suspect because of inherent local biases (we didn't let the Germans and Japanese conduct their own war-crimes trials, either).

[kestrel91316]

3. If Bush wasn't charged, no way Obama should be charged.

Selective prosecution is, however, the realm of RWers, so who knows what could happen if they get in power again.

[Gravitycollapse]

4. He should be tried under the regulations of the applicable laws.

As far as a sentence, I am not sure what kind of sentences these crimes carry.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. Execution or life in prison.

[Gravitycollapse]

6. Then if he is convicted he should receive one of those sentences.

Not sure what else to say about this.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. That's all I wanted to know...

...whether Obama should be tried for a crime that ultimately could put him in prison for life or lead to his execution.

So, I can gather you think Obama might deserve being executed for war crimes.

Cool.

[Gravitycollapse]

10. Well, I don't support execution. So I guess that would leave a lesser punishment.

And this is all still assuming he is found guilty.

[Drunken Irishman]

12. It doesn't matter what you support...

If it's an option, and you still believe he should be charged, it's irrelevant what you support. I mean, I might be opposed to a murderer being put to death - but that doesn't mean I won't support the murder charges against him that might put him on death row. You know?

So, if you think Obama is a war criminal, and should be charged, you have to accept the possibility might be death.

[Maximumnegro]

13. Oh My Fucking God

We are now actually talking about executing Obama.

Holy Shit. This place is F*cked.

[Gravitycollapse]

14. I don't support execution. So I'm not talking about it.

[Drunken Irishman]

17. Whether or not you support it is irrelevant.

If it's an option to his being found guilty, and you believe he should be charged for war crimes, you're indirectly implying it's an acceptable option.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. Yeah actually no I'm not. I do not find execution to be an acceptable option.

Just as saying someone is guilty of murder does not mean I think he or she should be executed.

[Drunken Irishman]

26. So, do you then not support finding someone guilty if the option is the death penalty?

[Gravitycollapse]

40. Are you trying to play games with me? Either someone is guilty of a crime or they are not.

I support the law deciding between the two. Whether or not the punishment is just is another argument all together.

[Drunken Irishman]

43. And that's the point...

Your view on the death penalty is irrelevant. You said it - you support charging Obama for a crime that might ultimately be punishable by death. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with him being put to death - if you're okay with putting him on trial for a crime that's punishment is potentially death, you accept the fact execution is a possibility and therefore, accept the outcome.

[Gravitycollapse]

49. You have demonstrated a clear chain of unsound logic.

First off, the assumption you make without evidence is that supporting the law defining a person as guilty or innocent means I support the consequences of such a decision. The second is your rather sophomoric understanding of the phrase "accept the outcome."

If
A. One supports a guilty individual being found guilty under the law in question
and
B. Guilt under the law should be subject to punishment as regulated by the law
then
C. One accepts that the guilty individual should be punished under the regulations of the law

Conclusion: If one supports a guilty individual being found guilty under the law, then one accepts that the guilty individual should be punished under the regulations of the law

Derived from previous conclusion

Statement: If one supports a guilty individual being found guilty under the law, then one accepts that the guilty individual should be punished under the regulations of the law
If
C. One accepts that a guilty person should be punished under the regulations of the law
and
D. The law defines punishment as life imprisonment
or
E. The law defines punishment as the death penalty
then
F. Acceptance that a guilty individual should be punished under the regulations of the law means that one accepts that a guilty person should be punished with either life imprisonment or death penalty.

Total conclusion: If one supports a guilty individual being found guilty under the law and one accepts that a guilty individual should be punished under the regulations of the law and the law defines punishment as either life imprisonment or the death penalty, then one who supports a guilty individual being found guilty under the law accepts that the guilty individual should be punished with either life imprisonment or the death penalty.

What you are attempting to say is that D does not exist and that E is the only punishment the law defines. That is simply not a valid conclusion based on the previous chain of premises and conclusions. Because the acceptance of C allows for either D or E, it is not possible to claim logically that I must support the punishment as defined by E.

I can support the ability of the legal system to discern between innocence and guilt while not accepting the full list of punishments offered if one is found guilty. That is a logically sound stance. Your attempt to dismantle that and redefine what I find acceptable or unacceptable is a clear case of purposeful manipulation.

You are playing games. And I'm not interested in such things. Especially not with someone who doesn't seem to understand basic logic.

[Journeyman]

20. Not necessarily. . .

Albert Speer was convicted of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (as Armaments Minister, German war production went up the last three years of the war, despite the intensive Allied bombings), yet Speer was sentenced to only 20 years in Spandau.

Contrast this with the death sentence for Julius Streicher, who had nothing to do with the military and did not take an active part in the Holocaust.

As Bradley Smith concluded in Reaching Judgment at Nuremburg, the punishment meted out by the Tribunal was influenced in part by their perceptions of the class and social standing of the accused. The refined, erudite Speer was treated quite differently than the grotesque, benighted publisher of Der Sturmer.

[burnodo]

7. Would you?

Did you think Bush's war crimes should have been excused for the sale of...whatever it was that Obama said?

[Drunken Irishman]

18. Me?

Na'. Because I think you could prove, if you wanted to, that every president has committed war crimes.

Just Google "FDR" "War Crimes":

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22FDR%22+%22War+Crimes%22&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS457US457&oq=%22FDR%22+%22War+Crimes%22&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j69i62l3.257j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[burnodo]

21. So it's all good then

People here at DU and other places should never have accused Bush of war crimes since he is exempted from them. OK. Got it.

[Drunken Irishman]

24. I never said that...

But if you're going to go down that rabbits hole, you better commit yourself to the cause. No president is innocent. If Bush is guilty, so was Clinton and H.W. Bush and Reagan and Carter and Johnson and Kennedy.

[burnodo]

31. Ok, fine

What's to be done? Nothing?

[Drunken Irishman]

36. It's been that way since America's founding...

So...yeah. It sucks, right? But why should Obama be the first to be punished for something each president, many of whom are revered here on DU, is just as guilty of? Doesn't seem quite that fair, right? That of all presidents, it'd be Obama who ran the risk of being executed or spending the rest of his life in prison.

Not Truman for nuking Japan or Roosevelt for firebombing Dresden or Kennedy secretly trying to overthrow a government (and successfully doing it in South Vietnam through an assassination coup) or all the awfulness LBJ did with Vietnam - they all get a pass ... and somehow Obama is the one who should be tried?

[burnodo]

39. Will anyone be the first?

Something tells me Obama will suffer through no war crimes trials, so he certainly won't suffer through a sentencing. But still, if president after president commits war crimes and there's no action taken, what does that say about what we really think about US laws, international laws, or treaty obligations?

I don't care what Republicans say because there's no more petulant group of numbnuts in the history of the world than they.

[arely staircase]

9. regarding cornel west's comments

[disidoro01]

11. President Obama

Is just as guilty, but If bush was not and will not be charged, neither should Obama. They have both committed atrocious crimes in this War on Terror.

[Gravitycollapse]

15. That's not how the legal system works.

[whatchamacallit]

16. Are we not all equal before the law?

[polichick]

29. Theoretically, but not in practice...

Which is why the Dick is still a guest on talk shows and the banksters are sitting fat and happy, while a lot of less-than-wealthy black guys have filled up our for-profit prisons.

[whatchamacallit]

19. Would you?

[Drunken Irishman]

23. Na'.

[whatchamacallit]

25. Why not?

[Drunken Irishman]

27. Why?

Well let's see...

1) I think any case could be made for any president that, during their administration, they committed some type of war crime (especially if that president was the leader during a war - such as FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ and Obama). If you make the case with one, you have to make it for all.

2) The outcome is severe. Do you think Obama deserves the possibility of death or life in prison - along with potentially Biden and Clinton and Kerry?

[whatchamacallit]

28. Why have war crime laws then?

Should Nuremberg have followed your reasoning?

[Drunken Irishman]

30. Why pick now to start charging presidents?

Why not with Harry Truman or Kennedy or Johnson or Reagan or H.W. Bush?

We've had war crimes for a long time. Why didn't anyone think Truman or Kennedy or Clinton should've been charged? Could we retroactively charge 'em?

Why should Obama be the only president to potentially spend life in prison, or be executed, when every president either was similar or worse?

[whatchamacallit]

34. I would have supported prosecution of several of those presidents n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

37. Several - but not all?

[whatchamacallit]

38. If it can proved they all committed crimes against humanity

then yes all. Your rather disturbing standard seems to be if any get away with it, they all should.

[Drunken Irishman]

41. What's so disturbing about it?

Why should Obama be the fall guy for something that's been going on for a century-plus? You prove Truman committed war crimes ... and what does that matter? He's dead. The time to prove it would've been back when they were committed, no? So, if we sat silently for 70 years as war crimes were being committed by FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ and so on ... why the fuss now? Why should Obama face life in prison or the possibility of execution for something that has been a staple in American foreign policy since its founding?

It just seems radical to me that we're now finally going to hold our presidents to higher standards? Do you really want to see Obama executed? And why is it okay to give all those other presidents a pass - but force Obama to be charged? It seems arbitrary and vindictive.

[whatchamacallit]

45. I know where you're trying to go with this little speed trap

but it's a fail. I won't let you put words in my mouth. My views on leaders being accountable for their acts were the same before the current president and will remain the same after.

[Warpy]

32. Only if they also charge all of their own

from Kissinger on forward.

[pnwmom]

33. Cornel West is an over-the-top showboater. His pronouncement about this is crap. n/t

[Deep13]

35. Let's go after the criminals who started the war first. nt

[NoPasaran]

42. If Obama is a train, would you support Mussolini making him run on time?

[bobduca]

46. ^^

lol

[Drunken Irishman]

44. I've got everything I wanted from this thread...

I'm done here.

[Gravitycollapse]

50. No, you have not. Enjoy my proof and next time consider your games a little better.

[baldguy]

47. This is the logical extension of supporting Ed Snowden wholeheartedly & without reservations.

[LWolf]

48. That's a big if.

If a president, ANY president, is a war criminal, he or she should be charged and tried.

Nobody should ever be put to death.

[SoutherDem]

51. Only after Bush and crew

are and found guilty.

[99Forever]

52. I support all war criminals being charged.

Which team jersey those doing the charging are wearing, is irrelevant.