Question: If an action isn't illegal, then laws are made to make it illegal, should those who did

[DFab420]

such action before the law was passed be prosecuted for crimes??

I mean, we are all about the rule of law on this board right??

re: Criticism of Obama's remarks on why Wall Street hasn't faced prosecution.

[temporary311]

1. Think thats unconstitutional

[rampart]

42. ex post facto laws are prohibited

for good reason.

existing laws on fraud should cover many of the bankster crimes.

[Go2Peace]

51. According to William Black there were plenty of crimes committed

Read about it on PBS. There is a good video too.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04232010/profile.html

[michreject]

56. The Lautenberg Amendment had a retro application

to deny gun ownership for DV convictions. It was upheld.

The issue, while being an important one, still allowed a Ex Post Facto application.

[EOTE]

2. Absolutely not.

You can't and definitely SHOULDN'T prosecute someone for actions that were not a crime at the time. You aren't serious, are you?

[DFab420]

6. No not serious. Pointing out the whole: "OBAMA LET WALL STREET OFF! WHERE IS THE PROSECUTION" meme..

and how ridiculous it is.

[Bandit]

12. The ridiculous part is there was zero investigation to see if any laws were broken.

Just to say they did everything legal without any real knowlege of the fact makes one look rather foolish imo.. We know what happened caused a lot of pain and misery. We just are not sure if it was all entirely above board..

[TheWraith]

15. On the contrary, there have been LOTS of investigations, including some ongoing.

Saying that there haven't been investigations doesn't make it so.

[EOTE]

44. Can you point out these to me?

I've been wanting for there to be substantial investigations for quite some time, it seems to me that it's mostly been ignored. I'd love to know what they're doing to ensure that everything has been on the up and up.

[JuniperLea]

19. What makes you think there has been no investigation?

There most certainly has. It was immoral, no question. Dirty and rotten, you betcha. Illegal? Show me the law.

[EOTE]

43. Yep, that's the most maddening thing.

Someone steals a loaf of bread and chances are they'll get arrested for it. These thieves on Wall St. have enriched themselves to an obscene extent at the cost of everyone else and there's not so much as an investigation. I'm quite sure numerous crimes have taken place, but they'll never be unveiled if an investigation doesn't take place.

[Go2Peace]

52. William Black (Prosecutor during a previous bank scandal) says there were... MANY

According to William Black there were plenty of crimes committed

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04232010/profile.html

[sad sally]

30. Unless the government determines they're a terrorist, then all bets are off - drone 'em.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. No, you can't prosecute someone for something that wasn't illegal at the time they did it.

[yurbud]

36. how can you make a particular kind of fraud legal?

[SheilaT]

4. Actually, that's called (I think)

an ex post facto, and we do not permit that in this country. If it was legal when you did it, that past action does not become criminal after the new law is passed. Just don't do it again.

[DJ13]

5. Many state AG's think there was illegal actions by the banks

The question should be, what do they see that the DoJ refuses to acknowledge.

[Angry Dragon]

7. Fraud in foreclosures

[TheWraith]

16. The DOJ has been investigating that too re: foreclosure mills.

But hey... don't let facts get in the way.

[DJ13]

21. Yes they have, but they also are trying to cut the banks a sweetheart deal

But you knew that.

[TheWraith]

26. Only in some people's imagination is concessions and penalties from the banks a "sweetheart deal."

Including a reprieve from foreclosure for millions and millions of Americans on the edge of losing their homes.

[gateley]

8. They make unreasonable demands at times. There are truly

things he CAN'T do.

[meow2u3]

9. Can't the banksters be prosecuted for misappropriation of bailout funds?

If they can't, they should.

[TheWraith]

17. Misappropriation how?

Given that the bailout funds were repaid.

[girl gone mad]

40. Bailout funds were not repaid.

We are still owed at least $1,500,000,000,000.000




..and it's about to get a whole lot worse.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Article I, Section 9:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

[gratuitous]

20. Oh, the Constitution! As if!

There's some obscure passages in that quaint old document about due process, cruel and unusual punishment and right to trial by jury, but you don't see the Obama administration getting all preoccupied with that nonsense. 9/11 changed everything!

Unless, of course, this whole thread was started as flamebait. But since that would be construed as a "call out" by some of our over officious faultless moderators, I wouldn't say that.

[Rosco T.]

11. you can't pass and Ex Post Facto law... n/m

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Nope, that would be unconstitutional ex post facto prosecution.

As galling as it might be, if something was legal when it was done, the person who did it can't be prosecuted. However, if the law changes to make that thing illegal and then they do it again, obviously they can be.

[seabeyond]

14. if it was legal at the time, you cannot undue that. i think the majority of ills i heard were legal

many people knew it was legal and was going to be a problem. i am thinking obama probably is not too far off on what he said. as much as people may not like it

[JuniperLea]

18. Nope...

That would be illegal in itself.

If that action was allowable, we'd be in a heapload of poo.

[DFab420]

22. What?! You mean Obama isn't prosecuting banksters because he was paid for, but because the

actual RULE OF LAW?

GASP! SHOCKER!

:sarcasm:

Turns out the President is one of the few people aware of the powers his office holds.........

[JuniperLea]

24. You mean he's NOT a Magic Negro (TM)?

Now THAT is shocking!

[DFab420]

25. ahahahha awesome pic

[Capitalocracy]

29. That would be illegal...

like killing people without a trial...

I agree with the premise of the post, you don't convict people ex post facto, but there are existing laws the banks broke that the justice department has decided not to pursue.

[OHdem10]

23. The Republicans had deliberately and meticulously repealed

all Banking Regulations of significance. Remember
Clinton signed the repeal of Glass -Steagall which
was led by Phil Gramm and GOP. Then Bush repealed
other lawas of significance. This left Bankster
free reign to do as the please.

You can not sue unethical acts or immoral acts.
Everything immoral is not illegal.

Lwas have to be in effect at the time it is broken.

Financial Types can be most creative. They push
the envelope to the edge but careful not to break
the law. As soon as they get a regulation they
put teams of lawyers to work to find every possible
loophole they can exploit.

[Ignis]

27. Translation: HAW HAW PROTESTERS ARE DUMB!

:eyes:

[DFab420]

32. That's not at all what I said. Thank you for putting your crap words in my mouth.

[Ignis]

34. Oh, I have "crap words," do I? You're a peach.

It's certainly delightful to see the status quo so heartily defended on a Lefty website. :hi:

[DFab420]

41. So defending the Democratic President from ridiculous arguments on a Democratic website

is the status quo?

Then yes. It certainly is delightful.

I wasn't insulting #OWS, I was pointing out the fact that the President spoke correctly when asked why he hadn't prosecuted bankers and he replied "The didn't do anything that was illegal"

[Ignis]

48. Right, because only the OTHER guy's arguments are ridiculous.

Mote, plank, etc.

[Capitalocracy]

28. If you did what the banks did on a much smaller scale...

you'd be in some hot water right now.

[Zorra]

31. I bet a good lawyer could find that the actions of the banks were illegal.

Or at least find some means of using a loophole to punish them for their lack of ethics and morality.

When crooks make laws, they make them to protect their criminal activities.

[Posteritatis]

33. *facepalm* (nt)

[jmowreader]

35. Since this is about the banksters...

The BIGGEST problem we face, without question, isn't that the banksters did some really sleazy shit. We know they did.

The problem is, thanks to Phil Gramm's Commodity Futures Modernization Act and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the things they did were totally legal and no action has been taken to remedy this.

[yurbud]

37. what part of the Constitution was Obama worried about when he killed that American al Qaeda guy

recently?

The Constitution only seems to matter when it protects the rights of the wealthy or serves as an excuse not to do more for the rest of us.

[yurbud]

38. and how about racketeering and the RICO laws? Since they emailed each other and elite investors,

that makes it a conspiracy to commit fraud.

[Go2Peace]

55. Plenty of evidence. Just no interest in really doing anything about it

in Washington.

[yurbud]

60. maybe if assets seized via forfeiture could be divided among pols as campaign contributions...

[yurbud]

39. you could charge them with just about anything and any jury would vote to convict

and execute if given that option.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. There's an argument to be made that banks broke existing laws.

That's what people are pissed about.

[hack89]

46. No - they should not be prosecuted. nt

[leftynyc]

47. No - that would be unconstitutional

He's right - those things weren't illegal but those same bankers should be shamed every second of every day and be made to explain why they deserve multi million dollar golden parachutes for when they fuck up a company. Everyone that has a 401k should attend as many stock holder meetings as they can and demand answers.

[savalez]

49. No, Laws should not be enforced retroactively.

[Xicano]

50. I thought fraud was already illegal

:shrug:

[Go2Peace]

54. exactly. This talking point sounds like an attempt to confuse and twist the history

[Go2Peace]

53. It doesn't matter. They broke laws already in place, but nobody will be prosecuted

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04232010/profile.html

[Xicano]

59. Exactly...

And thanks for the link Go2Peace..

:hi:

[ElboRuum]

57. No ex post facto laws,,,

It's pretty basic... you can't prosecute someone who performed a legal act after the fact if a law is passed which makes it illegal. Constitution 101.

[gratuitous]

58. Question: If someone says they didn't do nothin' wrong, and lots of things went wrong

Should anyone look into what the prime suspect might or might not have done, instead of just taking their word for it?

I mean, we are all about investigating wrong-doing, and not just taking the accused's word for it, right?

Oops sorry; I forgot what message board I was on.