Do you think George W. Bush should be prosecuted by the Obama administration for torture?

[Cali_Democrat]

60 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	52 (87%)
	No
	8 (13%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hrmjustin]

1. Yes.

[quinnox]

2. Yes. Specifically, I want hearings and investigations into everything that happened after Sept. 11,

including the Iraq invasion, the phony evidence, and how it was all cooked up. This was the biggest disaster and mistake the USA has made in decades, and it needs a full investigation of why it happened. DUH.

[calimary]

3. Yes.

Pure 'n' simple. And dick cheney too. And wolfie, and dougie, and scooter, and rummy, and contradicta…

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Damn right.

We're already paying the consequences of not having done so.

[NCTraveler]

5. Voted no for a couple of reasons.

1) If it wasn't started on the first day of the administration it shouldn't start now. The administration could in no way justify the timing.
2) I don't think everything has been unmasked. Are you sure you know what has happened behind the curtains for the last 6 years? That would be asking a current administration to prosecute previous administration when all of the current administrations actions are not known. Might be more to the story.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. regarding your point #2:

I think anyone in any administration using torture should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'm also very aware that it's never going to happen, but it should.

[NCTraveler]

13. Fully agree with what you said.

Unfortunately, it's not going to happen, as you said. I was just making the point of why the current administration might want to have nothing to do with a prosecution regarding torture.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

15. Right--and I agree with your follow-up Have a great weekend. nt

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

19. I voted yes AND was cognizant of point 2

Easy to lose sight of right and wrong around here.

[NCTraveler]

20. I don't think it is too difficult with respect to right and wrong.

It's just reality. Torture is wrong. Letting torturers go is wrong. Prosecuting someone for something you know you are personally guilty of would be right yet very stupid. Way more than right and wrong goes into these decisions. That is if the point is accurate in the first place, which I believe it to be.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

26. You make waaaaaaay too much sense

Right and Wrong is partisan. I discovered that when I returned as an active DU member about a month ago.

[TwilightGardener]

6. It's too late now, maybe--but yeah. What a stain on our country.

[KittyWampus]

7. No, I never though there should be prosecutions. Something like Truth & Reconciliations Hearings

that would make more sense.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

8. Of course I do. nt

[Solly Mack]

9. That should have happened, yes.

[Recursion]

10. For breaking what law?

That's the problem.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. For violating the UN convention against torture?

This treaty was ratified by the US, I believe.

Therefore it is US law.

[Puzzledtraveller]

16. and what if torture has taken place under our current president?

It very well could have.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. Yes that is possible

I don't know.

Obama did sign an executive order prohibiting 'enhanced interrogation techniques'.

[m-lekktor]

76. I don't have links to articles handy but

I can recall Jeremy Scahill making this claim awhile back.

[Recursion]

17. Ratified treaties must have enabling legislation to be binding criminal law

Do we have enabling legislation?

(I honestly have no idea.)

[Cali_Democrat]

18. I have no idea either. nt

[Solly Mack]

27. We have federal statutes against torture, yes.

We had them before Bush was in office. We had them while he was in office. They are still on the books.

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code

Now, the torture enabling Congress under Bush did change the wording of the 1996 law by lifting the definitions of torture from the torture enabling DOJ's torture memos. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 changed the language of the War Crimes Act of 1996.

The War Crimes Act originally said ANY breach of Common Article 3 - the MCA 2006 amended the WCA 1996 and added the word grave - as in any grave breach. And with Bush's DOJ redefining torture, you can see how this was a CYA approved by Congress.

http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/faqs%3A-military-commisions-act


http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL33662_10022006.pdf

Pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S. 3930; P.L. 109-XX
[public law number not yet assigned]), approved by Congress in September 2006, the
War Crimes Act criminalizes only those Common Article 3 violations labeled as
“grave breaches.” Previously, any violation of Common Article 3 constituted a
criminal offense under the War Crimes Act. This report discusses current issues
surrounding the War Crimes Act, including amendments made to it by the Military
Commissions Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996


http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule156


Military Commissions Act of 2009

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-military-commissions-changes-law

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41163.pdf

[Rex]

68. Thank you!

I thought we did!

[Recursion]

128. So, the thing about CYAs is that they tend to C As.

Now, the torture enabling Congress under Bush did change the wording of the 1996 law by lifting the definitions of torture from the torture enabling DOJ's torture memos. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 changed the language of the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Yup. That's the problem, particularly since they granted retroactivity. So, again, what law do you use to charge him?

[Solly Mack]

130. That change doesn't prevent prosecutions. The law still applies.

I only said they changed the wording of the 1996 Act. I never said that prevented prosecutions under the federal statute. It was an attempt by the Bush administration and the DOJ, with the help of Congress, to

downgrade certain forms of torture so as to claim they didn't rise to grave breaches.

Waterboarding and torturing someone to death are both grave breaches. (and the U.S. did both more than once)




So, again - I gave you the law.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. then shouldn't it be up to the Hague?

[yeoman6987]

37. We don't fall under The Hague at all.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. But Obama IS working on THAT...

Positions in the United States concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The Bush Administration, the US administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama Administration has subsequently re-established a working relationship with the court.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Nope, the US is not a signatory and does not participate in the World Court

Den Hague has no authority nor power to do a thing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. Obama is changing that....much to your chagrin...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

Positions in the United States concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The Bush Administration, the US administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama Administration has subsequently re-established a working relationship with the court.[3]

[former9thward]

80. You can bold Wiki entries all you want.

ICC has never been ratified by the U.S. and there are no plans to do so. It has no jurisdiction in the U.S.

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. Try again...

http://www.amicc.org/usicc/administration

[former9thward]

90. If you want to ignore reality go ahead.

The ICC has no jurisdiction and has never been ratified by the U.S. Harry Reid could have placed it before the Senate anytime in the last 6 years. He never has.

[VanillaRhapsody]

94. I gave you facts that we HAVE progressed on THAT too!

denial is not a river in Egypt.

[Niceguy1]

100. only progress that matters

Is ratification in the Senate.

Untt then, they have no power over any us citizen in our country.

[VanillaRhapsody]

104. No actually...progress IS progress.....

always....

[qazplm]

113. the only progress

is ratification in the Senate, until then, it isn't a treaty, and thus, is not law.

Period, full stop. I don't care about being part of the ICC one way or the other, but right now, whatever accommodations we may make, it isn't law here in the US.

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. to YOU....

but you are not the sole arbiter of what IS or isn't progress are you?

[Niceguy1]

121. what do you define as

Progress?

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. Definitions....

prog·ress
noun
ˈprägrəs,ˈprägˌres,ˈprōˌgres/
1.
forward or onward movement toward a destination.
"the darkness did not stop my progress"
synonyms: forward movement, advance, going, progression, headway, passage More


What is YOUR definition?

[Boom Sound 416]

123. I don't think that makes it us law

[Recursion]

25. In violation of what section of the US code or UCMJ?

This is a more complex question than you may think.

[Ichingcarpenter]

28. oh now its just the US code?

Or the MCMJ?


LIsten , my father had friends that were waterboarded by the Japanese

They hung for that

You are trying to legitimize torture like the NAZIS because it was legal for them to do it.

[Recursion]

30. UCMJ, not MCMJ

And, yes, generally, when you charge someone, you have to have controlling legislation to do that under.

I'm not saying there's not a case (I think there is, narrowly, particularly for Yee and W), just that it's not as simple as people think.

[questionseverything]

33. prosecution is the only way back to civilized society

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/late-try-bush-cheney-obama-war-crimes.html

[sakabatou]

12. Yes, but it'll never happen

[blkmusclmachine]

21. K&R

[Ichingcarpenter]

22. Truth & Reconciliations Hearings

LOL...... they should of had those in Nazi germany.

Torture.... is non negotiable.

[rock]

31. I don't like how you phrased the choices, so I'll rephrase my answer below

George W. Bush should be prosecuted for torture.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Yes. And, the ones who actually performed the torture.

[randome]

34. They gave themselves legal cover. It's reprehensible and plain wrong but...

...they covered themselves as far as they could. The public would be torn to pieces debating the meaning of 'torture' and whether or not Bush & Cheney at least thought they were acting in the nation's best interests. Clearly they didn't but that's what the arguments would be about and there would be nothing to gain by it.

Would it make us a better people? I doubt it.

I agree with a Truth & Reconciliation Commission or something comparable.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[questionseverything]

48. legal cover not possible for this

Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: “I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid’s ***…. and the female soldier was taking pictures.”

The translator was an American Egyptian who is now the subject of a civil court case in the US.

Three detainees, including the alleged victim, refer to the use of a phosphorescent tube in the sexual abuse and another to the use of wire, while the victim also refers to part of a policeman’s “stick” all of which were apparently photographed.

From the Taguba Report – originally published in 2004 – we know that a translator named Abu Hamid committed sodomy on prisoners under the supervision – and with the participation – of several soldiers. One of the prisoners sodomized may have been Hilas, who also reported sexual abuse with a “phosphoric light”. Hilas describes all of these events being photographed. Here is Hilas’ sworn affidavit, which was part of the Taguba Report.

Other prisoners, such as Mustafa Jassim Mustafa, also confirmed in sworn declarations rape with a “phosphoric light”.


///////////////////////

I have more faith in us, I am sure we can agree that rape, beatings that lead to death, waterboarding are torture

[randome]

50. I agree, anything of that nature should be prosecuted no matter what.

Waterboarding is what I meant when I said 'legal cover'. Makes me wonder, though, if they didn't have some other form of 'paper protection' in place. A 'Top Secret Finding' or something.

But yes, anything outside that, I would be in favor of prosecuting to whatever level was necessary.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

85. +1 they would fight those issues at every level in the courts

They would have money for lawyers to brief and raise every issue they could think of from Executive Privilege to international charters.

It would not be so easy as its advocates think it would.

[randome]

87. And in the process damage the Democratic brand.

Of course I understand that truth trumpets branding but I think Obama sees the negatives as outweighing the positives.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Doctor_J]

135. the public is already torn to pieces

to a great extent because this was never aired out. Every Republican administration gets away with more heinous criminal activity than the one before it. Someone needs to deal with it.

[Whisp]

35. This is a really tough one!

I would love to see his ass and Rumfeld's and Cheney's and Rice in prison. And not one of them fancy holiday inn ones, the kind that regular people are put in for something as idiotic as marijuana. Add many names to that - Wolfowitz, o, so many. - it would be a dream come true.

If the Justice dept did this on the 11th hour of Obama's term, then the next Dem pres would be even more paralyzed than Obama was, what with all the hew and cry. Plus there would be even a bigger revolt of the fuckwads, the baggers and the likes, the militia type that would cease this opportunity to go completely haywire.

I would want some kind of punishment for all the 'good dems' that voted for this atrocity too. If the system was working right and people voted their conscience and not their pocketbooks there could be no way the Chimp and Co. could do what they did - home invade a sovereign country.

[fredamae]

36. If there is solid evidence

--yes, upon evidence of said crimes? Investigations based upon the evidence should begin without delay and if the conclusion renders guilt then they, like All the rest of us-should be held accountable. We are oft times "tossed a bone" for punishing the "underlings" when the orders come from the top.

[riqster]

38. Where is the "Fucking Hell Yes" option?

[Submariner]

39. No. It would be a waste of Obama's time

Dubya should just be stripped of his secret service protection then air dropped into downtown Baghdad. The local Sunni and Shiite welcoming committee would take care of AWOL boy.

[Sunlei]

40. Yes, but that will never happen because bush et all are immune because of our laws.

Wouldn't mind if another country, (any country!!!) countries set-up an International Court. To late for that action now too.

Obama doesn't even have the 'power' to keep evil-Cheney out of the closed door meetings he always has with our current Congress. I don't think Cheney should even be allowed in the USA, he should put his citizenship in Dubai to good use and stay there forever. All of them should be on the no fly list, get out and stay out.

[KamaAina]

41. No

he should be prosecuted for torture by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

[TheKentuckian]

51. How so? Are they just going to turn themselves over?

[PoliticalPothead]

42. Absolutely. Although it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the Obama administration.

Considering the fact that, under this presidency, inmates at Guantanamo Bay who engaged in a hunger strike were force fed in an extremely painful procedure that the UN Human Rights Commission regards as a form of torture.

[randome]

49. So let them die because the GOP refuses to release them?

I think that was actually a very tough call for anyone to make.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

45. So what percentage of liberal Democrats think Dubya should be prosecuted for torture?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[themaguffin]

47. I don't see the point of this. Ain't ever, ever, ever going to happen.

[TheKentuckian]

56. Then there is no legitimate rule of law, leaving us with just us and no justice.

It also means the high probability of a death spiral of institutional entropy that will consume anything beyond window dressing for broad prosperity and self determination.

[themaguffin]

66. and it ain't happening. So just give up on life, or work on what CAN happen

[TheKentuckian]

114. This is basic there is no "can", if we can't then anything that can happen is a gift not the fruit

of people power or rule of law as neither has significant bearing in the affairs of state.

[themaguffin]

131. That's what I'm there is no "can" in this, so focus on what what CAN be done. Not wishing.

[TheKentuckian]

132. Nothing can be done then, we can be granted a few boons that don't cost anything.

Focus on what? What kind of dog a politician can get?

[Lars39]

52. Hell, yes. "A Guide to the Memos on Torture":

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html?_r=0

[Ohio Joe]

53. I voted Pass... And I'll tell you why...

It could be that I am taking the wording of the OP a bit literal... I also may not understand exactly how all of this should work so... Those two things being said...

I think what should have happened on day one of President Obama's term was to go to whatever world body (The Hague? The UN? I'm not sure) and said that he wants initiate and co-operate fully with an investigation into the torture allegations of the previous President... And then fully opened the government for examination of the allegations. This, to be followed up by a US investigation of the same allegations.

Prosecution by both would be based on the crimes uncovered.

The reason I voted pass was simply because of the wording 'should be prosecuted'... That should not happen until after a complete investigation. It absolutely should not have been, nor should it continue to be un-investigated thoroughly.

Perhaps nit-picky on the wording but... That is what I think.

[leftyohiolib]

54. i want invetigations into why impeachment was off the table

[Cali_Democrat]

57. Huh? A criminal investigation into why Congress took impeachment of Bush off the table?

I'm not sure taking impeachment off the table is a crime that can be prosecuted by the DOJ.

[leftyohiolib]

97. i know, but that's what i want

[Blue_In_AK]

55. Although I think Cheney is more guilty.

[Half-Century Man]

58. Yes.

I've always thought that the "protect the image of the office of the President" meme used by Ford to justify the pardon of Nixon was deeply flawed. The extension of "protect the image of the United States" by burying or ignoring the wrong doings of elected officials is even more flawed.
In order to protect the image of the Unites States and any elected office, we need public inquests, trials, and sentencing.

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Obama's claims of Big Religion are so bogus while he looks the other way at

torture of children and others. DaVinci said 'He who refuses to punish evil commands it to occur' and that's Obama at this point.

[Cali_Democrat]

65. Big Religion?

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. I voted No ...

not because I don't believe torture is a horrendous crime; but rather, because it would set an even worse precedent, as succeeding administrations will take to prosecuting previous administrations as a matter of course.

The country would not survive that.

[Boom Sound 416]

124. Fair, but mustn't the threat exist

Otherwise presidents are essentially immune, yes?

Unless they are impeached.

[dionysus]

61. in a perfect world, shrub, cheney, rummy, ect, would be up on treason and war crimes charges.

but if anyone here really thinks the American public at large is willing to get behind jailing the prior admin for life, or executing them, they're out of step with reality.

that would be Civil War II right there.

the entire govt would have ground to a halt 6 years ago and massive shit would have hit the fan. it's be a republican wet dream.

[Blanks]

69. That's why I voted no...

If the administration sought to punish the actual torturers and during the course of the investigation George W. Bush was somehow implicated - then I can see him (and whoever else in the administration was mentioned) appearing before congress and answering some questions.

It isn't realistic to start at the top.

...and if the current administration would have gone down that path to begin with - the shit would never end.

It's a bad path to take.

[Adrahil]

62. Ideally, yes. But it's a bad political precedent, IMO.

Once you start a cycle of such prosecutions, I think it leads down a very bad road. It's bad enough that the Republicans constantly want to overturn every Presidential election of the Democrat through impeachment.

[Iggo]

63. I think he should be prosecuted, period.

Obama admin.

Clinton admin.

Warren admin.

John/Jane Doe admin.

Anybody. Somebody.

[polynomial]

64. America will never never never be what you think if they are not

Not to be a doomsayer but soon all America will understand it is the best alternative to expose the intentional profiteering and the criminal torture as political examples of the one percent oligarchies. Bush Cheney and the Koch bothers example the perfect too big to fail syndrome.

The Bush and Cheney administration is the nicety nice polished version of the Koch brothers. It is a destiny for this dynamic oil economic system in old exhaustible fossil fuel to one day in the “Eureka Moment” think it will take an eternity to convince America to vote for a Bush or Cheney and to watch out for the Koch money. That’s better than the guillotine.

They are all tied together especially tunneled under the radio electromagnetic waves, all hard wired to the Arabs.

[whatchamacallit]

67. This is a serious question?

[Cali_Democrat]

70. Looks like DU sentiment is pretty overwhelming. nt

[bigwillq]

71. Yes (nt)

[Vashta Nerada]

72. It's very telling that 20 people voted no.

Very telling indeed.

[brooklynite]

73. Make that 21...

I'm still waiting for someone to identify the specific statutes violated for which criminal charges could be brought against the President and Vice President.

[Rex]

74. Post #27

There ya go!

[Recursion]

129. Post 27, which mentions the specific CYA law that is the problem?

If Congress declares something legal, it's pretty much impossible to charge someone for it.

[Vashta Nerada]

75. Are you being serious?

April Fool's Day was three days ago.

[KamaAina]

77. I voted No

simply because I believe that the appropriate forum for such a prosecution is The Hague.

[bigwillq]

79. Not really.

Some have pretty decent reasons as to why they voted the way they did.
Plus, it's only a poll on a message board. Nothing to take too seriously.

[Brigid]

78. Yes, Obama should prosecute.

Will he? No.

[idendoit]

82. That's a moot point.

It hasn't happened yet and it won't.

[2pooped2pop]

83. and treason n/t

[treestar]

84. Good question. I say no because it would become a long circus

and he might be acquitted or have a judge make a legal ruling that lets him out. He would take it all the way to the SCOTUS and the country would end up focused on Bush. He'd have his defense daily on Faux Noise and the media.

It is not a simple prosecution as its advocates tend to think.

[99Forever]

86. If we actually had a JUST administration...

... in office, you wouldn't even to have asked this question, it would have already happened and the war criminals of the Bush Crime Family would all be locked up in Supermax. Instead...

We are "looking forward."

And it's despicable.

[Sheepshank]

88. Since Dick and George were instrumental in the torture of non-US citizens

shouldn't it be the nation legal system (of those tortured nationals) to prosecute Dick and George, perhaps under international tribunals? I imagine the Iranians may have different standards than the Saudi Arabians, so would there need to be some sort of centralized set of standards, so should Dick and George be subjected individually to the legal standards of each individual nation rather than going through an international tribunal?

Does the USA represent persons from other nations and prosecute our own citizens in favor of a non US plaintiff?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be prosecuted, I just think it's down right messy and it's never been made clear to me where certain immunities end, and illegal starts. I can see any and all future Presidents stuck in a quagmire of milquetoast indecision, if they have to worry about every controversial decision being subject to future prosecution.

[TheKentuckian]

115. They tortured in our name, on our dime, and spread incalculable rot in our institutions.

Stop trying to pass the buck in pursuit of conflict avoidance.

[Sheepshank]

133. your snark wasn't necessary on a valid question, where international law is confusing

I am not saying Bush and Cheney didn't authorize illegal torture. I would love so see them stand trial.

But my quesiton stands...does the USA prosecute itself, or should the country of the victim pursue the prosecution? And if the USA doesn't prosecute itself, why haven't any of those other nations pursued that avenue?

in your anger, and in a rush to deal out insults and snark, you completely avoided the question. Nice touch :rolleyes:

[TheKentuckian]

136. What snark? Anger? Sure, guilty as charged. Snark? What I said doesn't even rise to mild sarcasm.

What insults?

There was no "avoidance" of any questions either. My statements were a direct response to the questions, that we are responsible for upholding our own rule of law.

I'm sorry you feel ill used for whatever reason but my response is serious and I see no real value in your questions. We won't extradite and we are not providing evidence that we almost wholly fully control so it sounds like a desire to duck the whole issue to me. If that wasn't your intent then fine but I don't see any functional context to allow the questions to be asked in seriousness or good faith. The crimes took place in our command and control, we have the primary duty to prosecute.

If someone from England is mugged in New York they don't appeal to Scotland Yard to arrest the mugger they go to the NYPD. It is our jurisdiction and we have the primary responsibility here.

I don't get what the argument against or offense at that is.

[WillyT]

89. Damned Fuckin Tootin !!!

My Old Man Didn't Fight For THIS Shit... He Fought Against It...



Top row, second from left.



Link: http://www.vmb613.com/officers_and_men2.htm

[johnnyreb]

116. Same here WillyT

Guadalcanal to Okinawa. And my dad didn't suffer all that for this shit either. Big existential thanks to your dad for providing air cover to my dad.

[WillyT]

120. (((((((johnnyreb)))))))

[onethatcares]

91. I really think he should be prosecuted

by the people of the United States of America for war crimes and murder in the deaths of all the Iraqis and soldiers that have died

due to his lying about the lead up to war.

But that's just my opinion.

[Octafish]

92. Obama Administration SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE.

That's why in Federal Court, State Court and Local Court, the thing will read "The People versus George Walker Bush."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/bush-adminstration-convicted-of-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity/5336860

[trueblue2007]

93. I VOTED YES (170 votes) and clicked recommend

[CFLDem]

95. He'll might as well...

We're already halfway to a banana republic anyways...

[bluestate10]

96. No. If we prosecute every President for bad decisions, every President

alive today and those that are dead would have served prison terms after leaving office. I am no GW Bush fan, he was the worst President in my lifetime and arguably one of the worst in history. But, I believe that GW Bush is a decent person who made horrible decisions and allowed horrible people to coach and mislead him.

I want to see the people that caused Bush to get elected in 2000 take responsibility for voting for Nader in key states, there are some that red faced deny responsibility on DU and use all type of smokescreens to not take responsibility. Once those people take responsibility for electing Bush, then I will listen to any argument about bringing him to trail for misdeeds of his administration.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

117. You don't want to go after Bush, but you have it in for Nader voters

Those two short paragraphs tell me all I'll ever need to know about you. Thanks. Goodbye.

[neverforget]

125. Disgusting isn't it?

[TheKentuckian]

139. How the hell is George W. Bush not accountable and responsible for his own actions?

Why does his mass murdering, torturing, thieving, polluting, lying, New Orleans drowning, warmongering ass grade as decent?

I bet there are millions that have done far less evil in this world that you'd have much less generous appraisals of.

How many hundreds of thousands and millions are dead, sick, homeless, hopeless, and destitute because of the acts and apathy of your "decent man"? What does "decent" even mean? White, old money, and connected?

[Exposethefrauds]

98. Yes and prosecute EVERYONE and ANYONE involved regardless of party

Let the chips fall where they may, even if it means some in the current administration are prosecuted too.

Here is something to consider, in 16 it is possible that the Pubs can get control of all 3 branches and if they can reach back and find a way to prosecute Dems they will.

[Enthusiast]

99. For torture and other crimes.

Torture is the greatest crime.

[Champion Jack]

101. I don't see it happening…

It seems like some kind of deal has been made…

[cantbeserious]

102. Yes - Absoulutely - Without A Doubt - He Should Pay Dearly For His Crimes

eom

[RKP5637]

103. Bush and clearly a number of others. Bush was a tool, there were many others

pushing Bush to the forefront.

[onecaliberal]

105. Yes!

Supposedly this is a nation of laws. Punishment for breaking laws should not be reserved for the politically powerless. The crimes committed by Bushco in our names for the sake of controlling oil deceitfully wrapped in freedom for the oppressed should be punished to the fullest extent. Anyone with their fingerprints on the most disastrous decision made by a administration in my lifetime should suffer the consequences of their heinous actions.

[nilesobek]

106. I did not vote out of fear of a rumor

that a DU member is playing statistician with polling data.

If there ever were a legitimate investigation, plenty of Democrats would be swept up and jailed as a result of enabling the neo-cons. Let that be a lesson for all Democrats.

The last government cannot pass the Nurenburg trial tests. Could the present one pass?

[99Forever]

107. War crimes are war crimes.

Those that commit them should be prosecuted, REGARDLESS of whether they are Team Red or Team Blue. Justice dealt out by or not for political reasons only, is immoral and unethical.

Period.

No more excuses for not doing the right thing.

[nilesobek]

109. Fuzzy, warm feelings surround me

when I hear talk of "truth and reconciliation committees." Such a deterrent.

[99Forever]

110. I have no idea what your point is. n/t

[karynnj]

108. Very hard question

The most important step that Obama took was to immediately end these procedures as soon as he was in office. At some level, it would have been ideal had he immediately asked the Justice Department to investigate and if necessary indict anyone who broke the law - with the intention of going all the way to Bush if the trail (as we all think it did ) led there.

Separately, either the House or Senate could have started investigations. I am not positive which committee would have had the jurisdiction - I think it would be the intelligence committees. This approach, rather than the executive branch approach, likely would have hobbled the Congress from passing the needed stimulus package. Remember that until Specter changed parties there was no way to pass anything without some Republicans. If I had to guess, if there was a strong effort to do this in Senate (the House only needed 50%), there would have been even less passed. In addition, it would have been less clear that the Democrats DID try to work with the Republicans - making the false equivalency.

Now, 5 years later, you could argue that Congress is not working with the President anyway - so there is nothing there to lose. One major question is whether it would harm US foreign policy ability more to put this all out in the open or if it is kept quiet. The other question is whether they can get convictions. Especially as you moved to well known people, would jurors vote to convict - when it means they are voting that their country committed war crimes. Imagine the damage if graphic compelling evidence is exposed and they are NOT convicted. (Note that the Iran/Contra indictments were for lying to Congress - not for the actions themselves.)

[marions ghost]

138. So maybe

those are some reasons why it would work better at an international level.

Refresh my memory--how do we know that Obama "immediately ended these procedures?"

It was Cheney's & co's war. Don't care what happens to the Chimp puppet. He rubber stamped everything. Which is complicity, but he was not the mastermind.

All these skeletons in the national closet...but the blood seeps out. The victims (and I include the people of this country who did not want the war, and even those who were sold it on a lie) --are a troubled lot.

Everybody knows our leaders committed unspeakable war crimes. It's the facing of the truth that is the problem. There won't be true healing until it is fully acknowledged. I wouldn't worry about fear of not getting a conviction for the criminals. It is all about the lessons learned, and the change in policy that brings (eg Germany). Never again.



Americans --are we people who take responsibility or are we people who hide and evade and deny? To just "let this go" is an extremely bad precedent.

[pansypoo53219]

111. i think we need to waterboard both W + cheeney on live teevee + then say we are sorry for these

miserable leaders.

[jmowreader]

112. He should be prosecuted for something

I like the Eliot Ness approach to this: Eliot Ness was charged with putting Al Capone in prison. Not "in prison for bootlegging" or "in prison for murder" but "in prison." Mindful of the fact Capone liked killing people who crossed him (like juries), Ness' Special Squad prepared many cases against Capone; if he was acquitted on one charge the government could immediately try him on another. Fortunately, this subterfuge proved unnecessary; the jury in the first case brought convicted him.

Bush and his people have committed thousands of crimes - torture, kidnapping, illegal wiretapping, accounting fraud...as long as Shrub Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Gates, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez wind up in general population at one of our fine federal prisons (ADX Florence sounds good to me) for the rest of their miserable lives, I care not what they're convicted of.

[Raksha]

119. Yes. Just because it will never happen doesn't mean it shouldn't.

And if not by the Obama administration, then by the next administration. There's no statute of limitations on war crimes.

[Initech]

122. Bush? Maybe. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice? Hell fucking yes!

Bush definitely needs to be arrested and prosecuted but for very different reasons.

[oldandhappy]

126. Rumsfeld and Cheney belong in jail.

I don't much care about the retired artist. He did not know what he was doing. The other two did know.

[YOHABLO]

127. I just got through reading ''Kill Anything That Moves" by Nick Turse and>

We should have prosecuted thousands responsible for the war crimes carried out during that ''war''. Do you really think we're going to get any justice for those who were tortured or the fact that the invasion of Iraq was brought forth with lies and deception? The thousands of Iraqi's who were needlessly murdered by an invasion based on lies? The billions upon billions of U.S. dollars wasted stuffing these fat cat contractors? The lie that we tell young soldiers coming home without legs and arms ... that they were there to fight for American's freedom? Really? You think any president would even go near that .. much less Hillary Clinton, who did vote to invade Iraq.

[eShirl]

134. no; if done it should be at the international level