Where does Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders stand on prosecution?

[Drunken Irishman]

It seems a lot of liberals wants to hold Obama's feet to the fire. Good. But he's out of office in two years. It's possible the next president then can turn around and prosecute Bush/Cheney (maybe even Obama - especially if it's a GOP pres). So, with the two front-runners to the liberal ideals potentially running (Warren & Sanders), where do they stand on prosecution? Will you vote for Warren or Sanders if they don't come out forcefully for prosecution?

[RobertEarl]

1. Have to vote for them, no matter

But not Hillary. She could have done something, like we all thought Obama would do something - anything. How wrong we were, eh?

[Drunken Irishman]

2. I'm just looking for something from either.

They could really use their position to push for prosecution. Interesting how even Bernie hasn't mentioned it.

[RobertEarl]

3. They would like to live?

At least long enough to get elected?

[Autumn]

4. Bernie has. I find it interesting the President hasn't used his influence or position to

push for prosecution, at the very least a little transparency on it.

Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called the investigation and subsequent report “an ugly chapter in American history.”
“Of course we must aggressively pursue international terrorists who would do us harm, but we must do so in a way that is consistent with the basic respect for human rights which makes us proud to be Americans,” he said in a statement.

all you need do is use the internet search engine of your choice.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. I see nothing in that statement that advocates for prosecution.

So, it would've been pointless to google. Thanks, tho.

[Autumn]

20. But as you now know, Bernie has spoken about it.

It wouldn't have been pointless because then you would have known he did say something about it. I doubt any politician will be calling for prosecution in the near future.

[Drunken Irishman]

26. If he's open spoken about it there should be a lot of quotes.

I meant him speaking about prosecution. Hell, Obama has spoken about torture.

[LawDeeDah]

7. I think the question is: Would Bernie prosecute?

or get the JD to...

What if he wouldn't prosecute, would he get the same treatment as the President is now?
Interesting stuff.

[Autumn]

13. The poster found it interesting that Bernie had not mentioned it. Bernie did

and that was what my reply addressed.

[LawDeeDah]

14. I see.

[JI7]

17. he did not mention anything about prosecution

[bettyellen]

25. correction: that he and Warren did not come out for prosecution.......

quite different from just mentioning the report.

let the excuses for Sanders and Warren now commence!

[Drunken Irishman]

51. Of course he wouldn't.

It's why he's not getting any criticism from even mentioning prosecution. He's a powerful senator and he's said ZERO on it. Yes, Obama has more power than Bernie in this regard, as does the Justice Department, but Bernie is a powerful voice. If he truly wanted to prosecute, he'd be out there advocating it.

[JI7]

15. none of that calls for prosecution

[Autumn]

18. I didn't say it did. The poster was under the impression Bernie had said nothing about it.

I simply addressed that part of his post. I have no idea if any politician will call for prosecution.

[JI7]

21. the poster is asking about prosecution, and he hasn't said anything about it

[Autumn]

22. The poster asked if Bernie had said anything about the torture

I simply told him what Bernie said this morning.

[JI7]

23. it was specifically regarding prosecution

[Autumn]

27. No it wasn't specifically regarding prosecution

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5937111

and I replied

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5937154

That's easy enough to follow

[JI7]

30. you leave out the OP which is specifically about prosecution

wihch was not included in your quotes from sanders.

[Autumn]

32. Well that's because I didn't respond to the OP, I replied to post # 2

[JI7]

33. #2 had to do with the original question in the OP

"They could really use their position to push for prosecution. Interesting how even Bernie hasn't mentioned it. "

that's what he says and he is clearly asking about prosecution .

[Autumn]

43. One more time. I didn't respond to the OP.

I don't care what the OP said I responded to post #2 not the OP

"I'm just looking for something from either.

They could really use their position to push for prosecution. Interesting how even Bernie hasn't mentioned it."

I told him Bernie had mentioned it and posted what Bernie said, It can't be made clearer than that. Now I'm done talking to you.

[JI7]

56. #2 has to do with the OP , and again it's CLEAR "They could really use their position to push for

PROSECUTION" .

it's ALL referring to prosecution.

[Autumn]

58. I do try to avoid arguing. Good luck with your future endeavors

[bettyellen]

29. GAME: See how quickly you can deflect and pretend it was a different question!

LOL, "facts" only make some happy when you strip them of all context!

[Number23]

35. I put my comment in the wrong spot!

It was and still is:

Funniest. Subthread. Ever.

[bettyellen]

36. LOL, hello there!

[Autumn]

38. DI found it " Interesting how even Bernie hasn't mentioned it."

Was that question not in his post??? Did you miss that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5937111

Drunken Irishman (26,943 posts)
2. I'm just looking for something from either.

They could really use their position to push for prosecution. Interesting how even Bernie hasn't mentioned it.

See the last sentence? "Interesting how even Bernie hasn't mentioned it." Obviously someone who reads will see I did not pretend it was a different question. That bettyallen was a question, I answered that question. That's a fucking "fact."

[JI7]

40. it is clearly about prosecution which is why he said "they could really use their position to push

for prosecution" and add to that the OP . it's very clear.

[bettyellen]

44. crystal clear, TBH!

[bettyellen]

41. "It" in that sentence- IS prosecution. There is no other thing in the previous sentence it could

possibly refer to.
LOL, nice try though.

[Autumn]

45. something " I'm just looking for something from either."

something in that sentence IS something as in " I'm just looking for something from either." something. something SOMETHING!!!

LOL, nice try for you though. Have a nice evening

[bettyellen]

46. something refers to- AGAIN- their stand on persecution- asking three times wasn't enough? LOL

It's a good question, and hilarious you can still pretend as if it was never posed. Wow, must be a sore spot.

[Autumn]

59. I do try to avoid arguing. Good luck with your future endeavors

[bettyellen]

62. not as well as you avoid the actual questions posed, LOL....

[JI7]

48. yes, he is looking for something about PROSECUTION which is thet hing he talks about over

and over again. you can't ignore all the previous statements he makes which mentions what he is talking about when he says things like "it" "look for something" etc.

[JI7]

50. yes, something refers to something about prosecution which is what he is talking about

you leave out all the previous statements he makes which clearly shows what he is talking about and looking for.

[JI7]

39. these things reveal a lot

about how much of the concern and outrage is actually about the issue v just using something to go after certain people on.

[bettyellen]

42. Yep, we will see thousands of excuses if Warren says nothing. from the same dozen people, LOL....

too much cult of personality up in here. too much playing dumb for my tastes!

[LawDeeDah]

5. It is interesting, isn't it? More will be the reactions here...

I wonder what the temperature will be like when Bernie doesn't address it at all, or says the WRONG THING!

[Autumn]

9. Bernie has addressed it and I'm sure he will have more to say

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5937154

[LawDeeDah]

12. No what I was looking for. Would he prosecute if he were President?

Don't you think he should come out and say?

[Autumn]

16. I think Bernie will have more to say later, but I doubt he will call them patriots.

Try Google if you are looking for more.

[JI7]

8. last i checked most of those considering or talked about for Pres run have not commented

on it at all.

[Cleita]

10. I will be interested in what Bernie has to say about this Friday morning on

Brunch with Bernie on FSTV. I'm not going to second guess him now.

[Downwinder]

11. Does it matter?

Would they be allowed to run if they were not compliant with the Security State?

[Spazito]

19. Hmmm, an inconvenient question...

to some, no doubt, but a good one none the less.

[Terra Alta]

24. at this point, I think it is a foregone conclusion

That Dumbya, Dick, etc will get away with their war crimes. I would love it as much as anyone to see them rotting away in some jail cell but reality tells me no President is going to prosecute them, no matter how progressive the President is. I think the best thing we can hope for is that history will paint them in a very bad light, remembering them as the war criminals they truly are.

[stevenleser]

64. I don't agree. A lot of war criminals were at large for 20+ years before finally being prosecuted

I think this is going to get Bush in particular eventually. Cheney may not live long enough for his crimes to be prosecuted.

[Zorra]

28. One problem I've always had with Senator Sanders is his tendency to

be too conservative in his approach to dealing with some issues.

For instance, he was against ending the filibuster when it really needed to be ended, and this was poor judgment, IMO. I would have put the hammer down and driven republicans to extinction by ending the filibuster and passing massive New Deal type legislation as fast as my pen could fly.

So I suspect that Bernie would take the same conservative approach with prosecuting the war criminals, because he seems to have a problem breaching protocol, again, especially with political colleagues.

This type of non-action in pursuing justice for heinous crimes against humanity is wrong. When people in very high positions of power commit crimes, you gotta pull the trigger on them. These freaks need to go to jail, and no one in the world has any reasonable excuse not to put them there.

I don't believe Senator Warren would take action to put these unspeakably wicked creatures in prison either, and she would be wrong as well. If anyone who is not in a position of high authority did anything like the Bush/Cheney cabal did, they'd be in prison in a heartbeat.

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. No sitting President will ever come out in favor of the prosecution of former Presidents.

Precedent.

[840high]

37. Correct. It will never happen.

[Major Hogwash]

47. Carter might.

I don't think he is afraid of death.

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. Read my post. Last I heard; Carter isn't a sitting President.

Not to mention that doing so would subject every Democratic President in the future to some kind of charges.

As I said... Precedent.

Former Presidents can voice their opinions to be sure. At this point, I doubt Jimmy Carter's opinion would amount to a hill o' peanuts.

[Drunken Irishman]

52. Agree with you on that one.

[Scootaloo]

53. I dunno. but neither of them are the president.

The president is opting out of prosecution.

Do keep up.

[Drunken Irishman]

55. LOL. They're just U.S. Senators. No big deal.

And one has said he may run for president.

Again, no big deal.

[Scootaloo]

57. The Justice Department is part of the Executive, not the legislative

I don't know what the positions of these Senators are. I do know what the position of the president is, however. and he';s the one in charge. he's who the DoJ answers to.

What Senators Warren and Sanders might have in their heads is not particularly relevant to what president Obama needs to demand the department of Justice do. Nor do their positions have any bearing on the fact that he is not doing this and has refused to do so.

Crimes against humanity have been committed under the direction of the United States government. People have bene tortured. We knew this, but now we have government confirmation and cataloged evidence. The Justice department has demurred to follow up on it, and the president seems to agree.

Apparently this bothers you less than the notion of Warren or sanders running for the presidency in a year and a half.

"LOL" indeed.

[wavesofeuphoria]

60. +1

[Drunken Irishman]

63. It absolutely is relevant. But you keep telling yourself two powerful senators opinions aren't.

It's interesting that Bernie and Warren have no problem telling the president to do this or that, and get lauded a million times over on DU for it, but when they go quiet on prosecution, it's now irrelevant.

[okaawhatever]

68. +100 nt

[bettyellen]

65. the purpose of this thread was to examine how two favored potential candidates have to say on

the matter of prosecutions. (not "it" as others here claim)
It's a fairly straight forward question. Not sure why so many seem to want to derail the conversation , but there it is.
It will be interesting if we get clear statements from them both, won't it?

[Scootaloo]

67. No, the purpose of the thread is to try to attack Warren and Sanders

Read Drunken Irishman's posts all through the thread. He's exploiting the torture of innocents to carry his well-established opinion on these two.

[bettyellen]

69. despite some people's motives- many of here will naturally be interested in this info.....

I know I am curious to see how reactions to this unfold- despite how unpleasant some people here make reading any thread about Warren or Hillary. I see dozens of people exploiting the torture issue- and it all sucks.
But the truth is, many will be watching for the reactions of all potential presidential candidates. Just as Obama's reaction is scrutinized and/ or exploited depending on your pov.
Too bad so many of us have to wade through a shit show of personal grudges here to discuss these things.

[JDPriestly]

54. My guess would be that Bernie in particular will come out strongly in favor of prosecution.

He has moral courage and is an honest man.

[L0oniX]

61. Only liberals? Yeah ...well that says a lot about the others in this party.

I didn't think any Democrats would be ok with this torture shit but I am wrong.

[Capt. Obvious]

66. This OP received a lot more food than I expected