If Obama actually cared about human rights, he would prosecute the known war criminals we have right

[grahamhgreen]

here.

I'm not buying it. How can a person ignore, and by ignoring therefore condone, torture in his own country, and then be taken seriously when he complains about human rights abuses elsewhere?

There has been some talk about the fact that HRW has come out with a report where it's preliminary findings are that the Assad regime is responsible for the attacks. If true, these attacks are an atrocity, but the USA needs to operate within the legal framework of international law if it wants to prosecute Assad. An unprovoked attack without UN approval means the US is committing a war crime itself. Advocating for such an attack is advocating for a war crime.

But I digress. If Obama's motivations were to stop war crimes, then he could easily, without international conflict, prosecute war criminals here at home, as suggested by HRW:

The New York-based Human Rights Watch said in a report released on Tuesday that the US authorities were legally obliged to investigate the top echelons of the Bush administration over crimes such as torture, abduction and other mistreatment of prisoners. It says that the former administration's legal team was part of the conspiracy in preparing opinions authorising abuses that they knew to have no standing in US or international law.

Besides Bush, HRW names his vice-president, Dick Cheney, the former defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the ex-CIA director, George Tenet, as likely to be guilty of authorising torture and other crimes.

The group says that the investigation and prosecutions are required "if the US hopes to wipe away the stain of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo and reaffirm the primacy of the rule of law".

HRW acknowledges the broad allegations are not new but says they should be given fresh attention because of growing documentary evidence with the release of previously classified papers, admissions made in books by Bush and others, and from a leaked International Committee of the Red Cross report that details illegal practices by the former administration.

The author of the HRW report, Reed Brody, says the issue also deserves renewed scrutiny because the Obama administration has all but abandoned its obligations. "It's become abundantly clear that there is no longer any movement on the part of the Obama administration to live up to its responsibilities to investigate these cases when the evidence just keeps piling up. Just this year we have the different admissions by President Bush that he authorised waterboarding," he said.

HRW says Bush and his senior officials are open to prosecution under the 1996 War Crimes Act as well as for criminal conspiracy under federal law.

"There is enough strong evidence from the information made public over the past five years to not only suggest these officials authorised and oversaw widespread and serious violations of US and international law, but that they failed to act to stop mistreatment, or punish those responsible after they became aware of serious abuses," it said.

Among the accusations in the report are that Bush approved waterboarding, ordered the CIA secret detention programme and approved illegal abductions of individuals delivered to foreign countries for torture, known as renditions.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/12/george-w-bush-torture

So, sorry Charlie, I'm not buying it. In my view, the administration is using the gas attacks as a pretext for war. Basically, a continuation of the neocon policies for transforming (or stealing oil in) the Middle East that started with Iraq.

[dionysus]

1. right. he doesn't suport human rights because he won't arrest *, cheney, condi, and rumsfeld,

and send them off to life imprisonment or execution. that's a move that would go down real well with the American public.

Jesus Christ what a f(l)ail.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Yeah. The omniscient Guardian missed that half...

or more, of the US population that supported those assholes and still doesn't think all that badly of them.


Sometimes, our side can show the teabaggers how to be assholes.

[dionysus]

4. we know that they're war criminals, but the truth is Americans aren't too keen on executing

heads of our own previous administrations, or locking them up for life.

it's not like attempting to do that would cause a governmental collapse or start a civil war or anything...

[PowerToThePeople]

7. where do you find these statistics?

dionysus
4. we know that they're war criminals, but the truth is Americans aren't too keen on executing

heads of our own previous administrations, or locking them up for life.

it's not like attempting to do that would cause a governmental collapse or start a civil war or anything...

I would say that a very large segment of the population would support this. If it causes civil war or governmental collapse, then so be it. We need something drastic such as those incidents in order to save us from ourselves as we steam full throttle deeper into a full blown Authoritarian Fascist state.

edit- I will not allow justice to die on the vine just because pursuing justice may cause certain factions to take violent responses.

[dionysus]

8. you think the country is behind life in jail or execution for the prior administration?

seriously?

[PowerToThePeople]

9. You think they are not?

seriously?

[dionysus]

10. you wouldn't even get a sizeable fraction of Democrats behind executing the previous administration.

the thought is absurd. seriously.

[PowerToThePeople]

11. Without any real statistics supporting, it is all rhetorical

edit - and i propose that it is not only the views of US citizens that matter in this situation. It is the views of every citizen in the world that was affected by the prior administration's actions.

[bahrbearian]

19. I think we need an investigation , get the facts, then go from there, to not investigate is a fail.

[grahamhgreen]

15. Yes, polling data supports this. And guess what?

Polling data shows Americans are against attacking Syria, yet he persists, so, in my view, your argument is vacuous.

[bvar22]

20. "your argument is vacuous"

Perfect description.

[dionysus]

29. or perhaps your grasp on reality. nt

[dionysus]

23. graham, you should be smart enough to know that a generically phrased question like that

will get a different answer than "should bush and cheney, rummy, et al, be tried for war crimes and treason, of which, the penalty is life in prison or death"

because those are the sentences for war crimes.

[lumpy]

24. Some people seem to think that Obama has powers that are beyond those in his job description.

[DevonRex]

12. What's a little FULL-BLOWN CIVIL WAR IN THE MIDDLE OF

AN ALREADY BARELY FUNCTIONING GOVERNMENT, RIGHT? Let's just give the fucking TEA PARTY AND NRA the EXACT EXCUSE they need to to MURDER every Democrat, African American, Latino, and LGBT in the whole fucking country. Not to mention every Muslim American or anybody they think LOOKS like a Muslim American. And then STORM FRONT will get in on the action and every JEW would be in danger, too.

GREAT FUCKING PLAN, GENIUS. When civil wars begin, ALL the dominoes start to fall. All the hatred bubbles up to the surface. You need to think before you start wishing for things or saying you don't care what happens.

[PowerToThePeople]

13. As long as NRA and tea-baggers exist

what you state is the inevitable outcome imo. They WILL physically come after those they oppose. It is just a matter of when. Demographics point to them losing out on votes. They will fight it in the only way they understand how.

edit- you already see small pockets of violence against all of these groups. It is there, just below the surface already.

edit2- and maybe, if we at least try to do right by the world before civil war happens, the world will try and help us in defeating the army of hate, bigotry, and fascism.

[DevonRex]

16. Simple answer to why it won't happen. Both parties should have known

the Bush Admin was lying. Congress did not do its job. They know it. The ones who voted no did so for good reason. They did their due diligence.

Going through a trial to hold the Admin accountable really isn't enough, is it? WE knew at the time that the Admin was lying. Specifically about the centrifuges - those aluminum tubes. Dan Rather had reported on them before Powell's address to the UN. They weren't made of a material sufficient for that use. That is why the Carl Rove set Dan Rather up with Bush's military records. To discredit him. Get him off TV.

So, Congress should have refused. They were every bit as complicit and responsible. That is why it will never happen. You have to accept reality.

[PowerToThePeople]

18. TPTB will not allow it, so I should just accept it?

That is your argument here?

[phleshdef]

41. "If it causes civil war or governmental collapse, then so be it."

God damn, I'm glad you aren't in charge. That's dangerous, reckless thinking right there.

[PowerToThePeople]

42. that is your opinion.

As I said, a civil war against the right wing is inevitable. They will resort to violence before being taken out of power or being called to task. All we are doing is prolonging the suffering and putting off the healing process after the disease of fascism and violence is cured.

edit- a post from a week ago getting a response? this was long gone.

[TheKentuckian]

25. Well, until we can reconcile this we have to turn over our moral outrage card

and sure as hell our prosecute war criminals card.

It is absurd and fake morality. Time to get off the soapbox and grab a steaming cup of shut the fuck up.

Hell, we could at the least stop fudging around the lines ourselves and give up the use of depleted uranium, land mines, white phosphorus, and all the other wicked shit like our tactical nukes so we could at least pretend we've turned over a new leaf.
Are we taking actual responsibility for all that agent orange?

This is getting into Drunk Drivers Against Drunk Drivers (except when we drive drunk) levels of stupid hypocrisy when controlling our damn selves is too hard but we still want to dictate to others because we have the might to make right.

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Oh, bullshit. Time to get back into the real world where almost nothing comes in...

pure black or white.

Poll anyone you want and you'll find a whole bunch who were happy that Clinton was under the gun and they are usually the asshole contingent. And most of them gave up after they lost the first time.

So, by what objective criteria do the Indict the Bushies people think they are any better? First you have to find a statute that works, then you have to explain why it's not just getting a bad administration out, but why they should be punished years after the fact and millions of dollars and man-hours be put to the task.

And while we still have all those other problems that are the reason we shouldn't spend time or money on Syria.

Screaming for the heads of past administrations, even ones as bad as Bush's, is not calling for justice, but for revenge.

[treestar]

37. and you know that if Obama really did do all that

it would be 24/7 outrage that he was doing nothing about health care, LGBT rights, helping Haiti or Libya or Egypt and goddam not doing anything to help victims of chemical attacks in Syria!

[TreasonousBastard]

39. Truth is, no matter what Obama does or doesn't do...

we're now at a point where he'll inspire outrage from every quarter, including his "supporters."

[TheKentuckian]

38. Oh bullshit yourself. Still spinning away not cleaning up our own act or holding our own

war criminals accountable while insisting on playing global police and having phony moral outrage that only applies to nations you think are weak enough to impose our will on regardless of any possible risks.

[TreasonousBastard]

40. It's what happens in the real world, which is...

a very messy and ultimately amoral place.

Those successful in their quests for justice understand that and deal with it-- often losing on the way.

[grahamhgreen]

14. Actually polls show that the American public supports such action:)

That said, the do not support war with Syria.

[GeorgeGist]

34. American Exceptionalism!

Fuck the world!

[dionysus]

36. more like a reality based view of what the american public would support or not support.

[sharp_stick]

2. So simple n/t

[grahamhgreen]

17. It's simple to demonstrate that his motivations for attacking Syria may well lie elsewhere.

Although, here's hoping for diplomacy, yay

[msongs]

5. he has his own pile of child corpses to own up to, but doesnt nt

[dionysus]

6. should we send this vile killer to the hague to be locked away?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

21. He is never going to prosecute any known war criminals in this country.

He's not even unhappy and ashamed to be in their presence.

[Wilms]

22. ^

[dkf]

27. We would also join the ICC to keep our people in check.

[WonderGrunion]

28. I guess you don't have the influence over the Obama administration you claimed

in the OP about Syria.

And here i thought he forgot to mention the council he received from grahamhgreen in his Syria speech.

[grahamhgreen]

30. I never made a personal claim. Link please. Apology accepted;)

[BainsBane]

31. Obama is not a Neocon

and even most, if not all, of the hawks within the Democratic Party are not Neocons. There were hawks in this country for decades before PNAC, and there will continue to be in the future. Anyone who has studied much US history knows that party leadership has little impact on foreign policy. The US is an empire and behaves like one. Neoconservativism is a particular ideology justifying US intervention abroad. There have been other ideologies in the past (eg. containment) and there will be others in the future, until we go flat broke from a bloated military and go the way the rest of the world's empires.


The Neocons were a group of Troskyites who migrated to the Republican party, hence the term neo before conservative. Their ideology does bear some similarity to Trotsky's notion of permanent revolution. Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol's father, was their first leader. Obama has never been a Troskyite; nor is he now a conservative in the American use of the term. You might call him a hawk on some things, but he's not a Neocon.

[grahamhgreen]

32. The agenda, attacking Syria then Iran is the same...

[BainsBane]

33. He doesn't want to attack Iran

that is in your head. He could have easily bombed Syria and told us about it after the fact, as past presidents have done. He chose not to.

[treestar]

35. Gas attacks are far worse than anything

even Bushco attempted.

This is unbelievable. The pipe dream of putting people away because we don't agree with them politically, equated with use of chemical weapons against people.

[cali]

43. Ack. Look, I'm not convinced that prosecuting bushco was politically possible

and it's all in the context of politics. That doesn't mean I don't think it was worth at least investigating.

BUT, I disagree that the gas attacks are far worse than anything buschco attempted. I think it's a spurious comparison and what bushco did changed the world for the worse in a way the gas attacks do not.

Lastly, this isn't about putting people away because "we don't agree with them politically". I'm astonished that that's how you characterize lying the U.S. into an illegal war.