The 'base' will be tolerant of a lot of things, but not investigating Bush isn't one of them

[debbierlus]

Yes, give Obama some time.

I don't expect him to announce an investigation before the inauguration. But, I do expect a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR to be appointed by the AG to investigate. No bs commissions to bury facts.

I will revolt against this - and I expect a very large portion of the so-called left (meaning people who want the constitution to be upheld will join me).

[geek tragedy]

1. You've already revolted over him holding a public inauguration.

Quite honestly, habitual complainers and whiners just get ignored. As they should be.

And, people who bash Obama more than they support him aren't the base.

[HughMoran]

2. You've noticed that too

"habitual" being the key word in you post.

:thumbsup:

[geek tragedy]

4. It's amazing how many spokespeople Obama's base

has. And all of them post on Internet discussion boards.

[debbierlus]

9. This is surreal. I am not being dismissed because I believe Obama has a moral & legal responsibility

To uphold the constitution.

Am I to take it that you would be fine with just letting the Bush administration's crimes past, unexamined and unaccounted for?

And, if that is the case, you might want to ask yourself what you ARE supporting? If we can't agree upholding the constitution is mandatory for a President, then we can't agree on anything.

And, I don't think I am the one who should be blasted.

[Occam Bandage]

11. There is absolutely no Constitutional duty

for a President to investigate another President. Hell, no President's ever done that ever. I might as well say that Obama has a constitutional duty to not investigate; it would be exactly as supported as your assertion is, and I'd have precedent on my side to boot.

[geek tragedy]

13. Let's put BIll Clinton on trial for starting the practice

of extraordinary renditions. Throw Al Gore in the slammer too, while we're at it.

[lonestarnot]

49. And war crimes? No constitutional duty to investigate that?

I call bullshit!

[Occam Bandage]

51. Nope. There isn't.

You can "call bullshit" all you like, but unless you can show me the language declaring such a duty, bullshit is all you got.

[lonestarnot]

54. Torturing in our name is treasonous and spying on us is sedition.

You might want to read about that bullshit.

[Occam Bandage]

55. Your complete failure to understand what "treason" is notwithstanding,

there is absolutely no language in the Constitution that so much as hints at a Presidential duty to order prosecutions of previous Presidents for potential lawbreaking.

[Usrename]

59. Wrong!

From the http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html">U.S. Constitution:

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html">U.N. Convention Against Torture was ratified on http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/9.htm">24 Oct 1986:

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.

It can not be more plain than that, can it?

[Occam Bandage]

62. The problem, of course, is

any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. That has been historically treated as a complete carte blanche to selectively ignore the domestic demands of international treaties. The Executive branch has full discretion over when it chooses to launch investigations of American citizens; no international treaty holds legal precedence over either the inherent powers of the Congress or the Presidency. That is not the way things should be, but that is the way things are and have been for decades. There would have to be something of a legal revolution for that to change, and as much as I respect Barack Obama, I do not believe that he is going to diminish the power of the Presidency. Very few Presidents have, and none willingly.

Said more simply: when it comes to exercising the inherent Constitutional powers of the Presidency, any Constitutional mandate has to come from the Constitution itself.

[lonestarnot]

65. Enforcing the law diminishes the Office of the President how precisely?

[Occam Bandage]

70. It isn't "enforcing the law."

Rather, it's transferring the Executive's inherent discretion to investigate to an international treaty, through language found only in that treaty. That would be held today as an unconstitutional demand on the office of the Presidency. By being subordinate to any law or thing in the Constitution, international treaties are utterly toothless.

[lonestarnot]

73. The world is not looking to us to discuss

inherent power within treaties, but rather to seek justice for the atrocities that America has committed based on the committment to obtain oil, war profits and more lies, just justice more than anything else and hold out for international humanitarian law.

[Occam Bandage]

75. That may be true, but is a very different argument from a Constitutional one.

I have no idea about international opinion on an investigation; I haven't seen any polls. If there is such an international pressure, then Obama would be wise to consider it, and to consider how restoring America's moral leadership role would assist him in solving the Iranian and Palestinian situations.

[lonestarnot]

77. Restoration of our standing is highly significant and I am certainly interested in doing so!

:toast:

[geek tragedy]

87. The world is looking to us for leadership on economic

and environmental affairs, and to conduct ourselves abroad responsibility.

If we do that, they don't give a shit what we do with Bush.

[bvar22]

108. You attack the OP....

...for presuming to speak for "The Base",
but it is OK for YOU to assume the mantle of Spokesman for the World?

WOW...just WOW.

[Usrename]

68. What are you talking about?

How is the power of the presidency diminished by sending these monsters to the hoosegow?

We have never had an American despot before now. Why is an investigation into torture a surrender of presidential power? (I don't think our judicial system can handle a trial, that's true. The Court has only gotten worse since Bush v. Gore.)

In any event, you are WRONG about the DUTY to investigate that is clearly prescribed in the Constitution and the Convention Against Torture. There is no imaginary clause in the document itself which conflicts with that duty. You are trying to make that part up out of whole cloth.

[Occam Bandage]

72. It isn't an imaginary clause. It was in your own post. I italicized it and everything.

Because of that clause, you won't find one incident of a President or of Congress being forced against their will to change their domestic policy as a result of an international treaty. The US stands in clear violation of multiple treaties, and that is a result of the Constitution's handy get-out-of-international-obligations-free clause. It probably wasn't the original intent of the Founding Fathers, but hey, living document and all that jazz.

[Usrename]

80. I don't know what you are reading into that clause.

"any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

That phrase does not preclude a president from investigating credible accusations of torture. If it does, you will have to explain it to me in ordinary language.

This is the exact opposite meaning to what you are implying. The treaty becomes the law of the land, that is why the Senate must ratify all treaties by a super majority. It binds every judge in every state. I don't know what you are getting at by arguing that the the opposite is true.

A treaty may not do or exceed what the Congress is charged to do or what it is forbidden to do. A treaty remains subordinate, and Constitutional authority supersedes, overrules, and precludes any contrary treaty authority.

So, show me where some contrary authority in the Constitution precludes any torture investigation, or one that carves out an exception for the president to authorize torture in violation of the law.

[geek tragedy]

86. Legally, no it isn't. n/t

[Usrename]

57. That's simple enough:

From the http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html">U.S. Constitution:

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html">U.N. Convention Against Torture was ratified on http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/9.htm">24 Oct 1986:

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.

It can not be more plain than that, can it?

[Occam Bandage]

64. Spamming it doesn't make it any more legally valid. nt

[Usrename]

71. That's true, it cannot BE any more legally valid.

It's the straight text of the document itself.

[uberllama42]

100. A president takes an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution

And in fact, the Constitution requires that they take that oath. If one president flagrantly violates the Constitution and the next doesn't seek to prosecute the perpetrators, that establishes a precedent that unconstitutional behavior will be tolerated. As you've pointed out, we have an unsettling tolerance for lawless behavior, as no administration has prosecuted its predecessor, but this administration has taken official malfeasance to new levels. If the next administration does not punish them, they are consenting to a meaningful erosion of the Constitution's authority.

I think that violates the mandatory oath to protect the Constitution.

[bvar22]

107. !

Well said!

:patriot:

[geek tragedy]

12. You are a purist who lives to complain about the lack of purity

in the Democratic party and its leaders.

And, no, Obama does not have a constitutional obligation to punish people for past crimes. And, punishing Bush et al is 1/1000000th as important as preventing our economic downslide, reforming health care, and taking on the issue of global warming.

[bvar22]

58. And YOU are a "Purist" who lives to attack anyone....

...who is the slightest bit "Impure" in their devotion to Obama.

[geek tragedy]

85. No. If people want to criticize him for Warren, or

for other things like that, I'm not gonna get in their way.

If they complain about his energy plan being too reliant on coal, or his health care plan to friendly to Big Insurance or Big Pharm, I won't get in the way.

When they act like their emotional need for vengeance to be brought to Bush overrides Obama's duty to govern and improve the lives of the American people, then they need a wake up call.

[bvar22]

88. And that is .....

...YOUR opinion, and I honor your right to hold it.

I will never object to you starting a thread to express your opinion.
I DO object when you and your friends attack and hijack a thread by another DUer expressing their opinion, or in this case, their position on an important issue with Ad Hominems, Strawmen, and personal insults.

If YOU support Amnesty for War Criminals, fine.
Start a thread.

[geek tragedy]

89. the OP misrepresented herself as speaking for Obama's base,

to which she has never and will never belong. She is a chronic Obama-basher, and indeed anything but 'the base.'

Those of us who do constitute the base need to make it clear that chronic malcontents like the OP are what they are--fringe complainers.

[bvar22]

91. Now that is just pure "Ad Hominem" combined with...

..a good dose of If you're not in MY club, I hate you."

Instead, why don't you try to defend the opposing viewpoint: "Amnesty for War Criminals is a GOOD thing.

For what it is worth, I support the OP's stand on this issue.
I believe that it is critical if "moving forward" is to have any real meaning at all.
I don't care what faction that puts me in.
I'll leave it up to those who think LABELS and Clubs mean something.
I don't care about the label.
I will only say that there are many more like me who care about the ISSUE, and NOT the label.....even the "Democratic" label.


I am a tireless advocate for PEACE.
I am a tireless advocate for Civil Rights and Equal Protections for ALL....no exceptions.
I am a tireless advocate for Rule of Law, no exceptions for the Elite Class.
I am a tireless advocate for The Constitution.
I am a tireless advocate for The Poor and the Disenfranchised.
I am a tireless advocate for Working Americans.
I am a tireless opponent of the MIC.
I am a tireless opponent to the concentration of Wealth & Power into fewer hands.
I am a tireless opponent to Corporate/Republican Influence INSIDE the Democratic Party.

I was all those things BEFORE Obama.
I will BE those things AFTER Obama.
It matters very little to me which political personality occupies the White House.
When they move TOWARD those goals, I will support and applaud them.
When they move AWAY from those goals, I will OPPOSE.

I've been here for a long time.
I am not going anywhere.
I am not going to be quiet.
I don't care if the Republicans/Bigots/Centrists get their feeling hurt.


"Centrism"....because it is soooo EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING, and get to insult those who do!

[geek tragedy]

119. Well, bully for you.

At least you don't pretend to be 'the base.'

[HughMoran]

17. You've been preemptively slamming Obama day after day after day

Do you think you're daily criticisms of actions which he may or may not take don't get tiresome after a while?

All of us here want to see Bushco prosecuted - this is why I was very pleased with Eric Holder's answers to the torture questions yesterday since HE is the one who will initiate the investigations, not Obama (though Obama may have something to say about this, in a real justice department (not a Bush controlled one), the Attorney General should be the person making these decisions, not some illegal interference from the President.)

[lonestarnot]

67. Ummmm.

She has? Was unaware of any of that.

[HughMoran]

109. So?

:shrug:

[cali]

43. you and the constititution? You are fucking clueless about that document

as this an many other comments of yours here indicate. You use the Constitution to further your own narrow little agenda, just like pukes. In other words, you wipe your butt with it.

[Usrename]

60. You mean THIS part?

From the http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html">U.S. Constitution:

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html">U.N. Convention Against Torture was ratified on http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/ratification/9.htm">24 Oct 1986:

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.

It can not be more plain than that, can it?

[lonestarnot]

63. No it cannot!

And thanks.

[bvar22]

61. It is not really "surreal".

It is the same small handful of acolytes who somehow manage to all jump on any thread they decide is not Pure enough in its devotion to a political personalty.
Just check the screen names and the tag team techniques.
It is always the same handful.
Their responses are always ad hominem, strawmen, and other logical fallacies.
None ever discuss the "ISSUE" presented in the OP, since issues aren't important to those who demand the Purity of unquestioned allegiance.
Loyalty Oaths are a "Good Idea" in this crowd.

What I can't figure out is HOW do they always manage to attack at the same time, and always get the first post.




BTW: The issue you presented (amnesty for Bush War Criminals) is not the ONLY one that I will STAND against.

*I will STAND against the promised escalation of the War in Afghanistan.

*I will STAND against ANY permanent stationing of US troops in Iraq, or maintaining ANY Permanent Occupation Bases.

*I will STAND against ANY increase in Military Spending, and ANY increase in the size of our Occupation Forces or Offensive Military.

*I will STAND against ANY "Fix" to Social Security except Raising the Cap.

*I will STAND against ANY "HealthCare" package that channels $Billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the FOR PROFIT Health Insurance Industry.

*I STAND against any "Stimulus Plan" that uses taxpayer dollars in more Top Down "Bailout" scams.

(and repeating your OP)

*I STAND against Amnesty for War Criminals.
(Amnesty = anything less than full, transparent investigation and prosecution)


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[lonestarnot]

74. I love your post!

:hug: :hi:

[HughMoran]

112. Demeaning, accusatory, arrogant and completely irrelevant

I'm sick of you and your paranoia - you dare talk about conspiracies - you always show up in these threads and always defend the people attacking Obama/Democrats. You are no better than those you accuse of conspiring against valid "political discussion". As defined by who - you?? Bullshit. You are a hypocrite.

[bvar22]

115. "Demeaning" and "Accusatory".....Yes! .... You GET it!

"Arrogant"?...perhaps. That call can be subjective.


"Irrelevant"? Absolutely not.
My comments are completely relevant to the atmosphere at DU.


"you always show up in these threads and always defend the people attacking Obama/Democrats. "

In REALITY, I defend people for Standing Up for Liberal Issues or Policy.
In this case, I happen to agree with the OP.
You will NEVER see me in threads bowing to the Altar of Obama, or encouraging unquestioning submission to a Political Personality.
You are entitled to do that.
I don't object, and will NEVER show up to spam it or attempt to hijack it.
So if you are sick of me, stick to those threads.
I don't care.

Instead of attacking the messenger on this thread, why don't you defend the counterpoint:
Let us hear your argument FOR Amnesty for War Criminals.


"Centrism"....because it is soooo EASY.
ALL you have to do is march in the Parade!
You don't ever have to STAND for Anything, and get to insult those who do!

[HughMoran]

117. I've already addressed the argument

So, maybe you should read before ASSuming.

From my post 17.

All of us here want to see Bushco prosecuted - this is why I was very pleased with Eric Holder's answers to the torture questions yesterday since HE is the one who will initiate the investigations, not Obama (though Obama may have something to say about this, in a real justice department (not a Bush controlled one), the Attorney General should be the person making these decisions, not some illegal interference from the President.)

I stand by my previous post that you're going out of your way to create a "conspiracy" of those who simply disagree with the criticism and that YOU are part of a gang of people that will ALWAYS attack those who perhaps agree with Obama or at least aren't chomping at the bit to look for ways to criticize him. I think you are no better than those whom you accuse. I still see you as a hypocrite.

[bvar22]

118. And I already told you....

..I don't care HOW you see me.
I've been here since 2001. You can search the archives until your finger hurt but you will NOT find me inconsistent on Liberal Issues.

You will NEVER find a post where I try to straddle a fence by saying, "I'm a supporter of this issue, but its OK to turn our backs this time because its "Our Guy". (BTW: THAT is "hypocrisy".)

I am a tireless advocate for PEACE.
I am a tireless advocate for Civil Rights and Equal Protections for ALL....no exceptions.
I am a tireless advocate for Rule of Law, no exceptions for the Elite Class.
I am a tireless advocate for The Constitution.
I am a tireless advocate for The Poor and the Disenfranchised.
I am a tireless advocate for Working Americans.
I am a tireless opponent of the MIC.
I am a tireless opponent to the concentration of Wealth & Power into fewer hands.
I am a tireless opponent to Corporate/Republican Influence INSIDE the Democratic Party.

I was all those things BEFORE Obama.
I will BE those things AFTER Obama.
It matters very little to me which political personality occupies the White House.
When they move TOWARD those goals, I will support and applaud them.
When they move AWAY from those goals, I will OPPOSE.

I also like the choice of Eric Holder, and thought he conducted himself well at the hearing. However, he and will do exactly as he is told. To think otherwise is delusional.

Now that I mention it, that is another area where you and your friends exhibit shameless hypocrisy.
On one hand, you say that its OK for Obama to appoint a conservative cabinet because they have to do what Obama says. He's the boss.
On the other hand you say....well, just read your posts.


NOW,

The OP stated her/his opinion that letting the War Criminals slide by (a la Clinton, 1992) without aggressive, transparent investigation and prosecution is a deal breaker for her/him.

NOW, instead of spinning you wheels and throwing a bunch of smoke and dirt in the air why don't you offer a counterpoint to the OP:
Amnesty for War Criminals would be a GOOD thing.

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[HughMoran]

120. You're just super awesome

Since you predictably:

1) brought up that you've been here since 2001 - like that makes you older or wiser that others here

2) you used the phrase "your friends" in an attempt to smear me by calling me "one of them"

Nothing else you say matters to me since your arrogance says all that I need to know.

[SlowDownFast]

124. Excellent. n/t

[K Gardner]

103. You're being dismissed because you do nothing but WHINE every. single. day. And if you

can't find something real, you make something up, or project something into the future, or go all pissypants over the fucking INAUGURATION for Pete's sakes.

You're being dismissed because no one takes you seriously anymore, except yourself, obviously.

[debbierlus]

3. I don't understand this -

One, I did not 'revolt' over him having a public inauguration, I stated that the cost was excessive and out of line.

Two - Expecting the President to uphold the constitution is NOT whining. If you would think about this, you might realize that Obama will inherit the Bush legacy by NOT acting. He will own it because he refused to right it. And, it will be forever his legacy.

[geek tragedy]

5. Obama has no Constitutional duty to prosecute Bush

any more than Bush had a constitutional power to detain prisoners.

You can't just make shit up and call it a constitutional obligation.

[nodramamama]

76. Do you think he should prosecute Bush though?

Sorry if you have said this before and I missed it. The thread is just too long.

Should he?

[geek tragedy]

83. If it doesn't interfere with health care reform, renewable energy,

rescuing the economy, etc etc sure.

Should one person go without health care because of a decision to prosecute Bush? No.

[Political Tiger]

27. Where in the Constitution

does it say the new president is to "uphold the Constitution" in the case of the former president? Wasn't that the job of Congress?

Where in the Constitution does it state the incoming president is to investigate the outgoing president? Where in the Constitution does it say if the outgoing president committed any crimes it's the responsibility of the new president to prosecute him?

Since when did presidents become a police force policing other presidents?

[Kahuna]

92. Thank you Geek! Holler!!

:applause:

[Two Americas]

123. no they don't

Your so-called "habitual complainers and whiners" don't get ignored. They get the most read, most recommended, and longest threads going, and they start the most intelligent and informative discussions here.

[DJ13]

6. I would be happy just prosecuting anyone below Bush/Cheney

..... that were responsible for the too many to count crimes by their administration.

Doing that would chill the climate in DC where they think they can do anything they want, as then it sets up precedent that would give future administration toadies and officials second thoughts about being yes men (and women) in committing crimes.

[geek tragedy]

7. I often see that theory, but it doesn't explain the fact that Liddy et al

got nailed and the GOP swept back into power in the next presidential election.

[DJ13]

14. Im not talking a token bust or two

Im talking full scale investigations and arrests of anyone in any department where it could be proven in court that they aided and abetted in violations of law while working within the Bush administration.

I WOULD draw the line at going after either Bush or Cheney, as its not uncommon to prosecute past non-elected government officials for breaking the law, but going after past Presidents or VP's is not something that has been done in the past.

Im not sure we should think about going that far.

[geek tragedy]

18. It's not going to happen, just like impeachment was never going to happen.

There are bigger fish to fry.

[Occam Bandage]

8. After you revolted against a public inauguration, and then revolted against

being told that a public inauguration is not a bad thing, I think everyone's just about expecting you to revolt over anything and everything. Why should Obama care if you revolt over a decision not to investigate Bush if you've already revolted that day over his fascist choice of tie color and complicit DLC choice of breakfast cereal?

[geek tragedy]

10. People expressing their ZOMG !111!!! OUTRAGE !!1!!!! on

the Internet will have Obama quaking, I'm sure.

[debbierlus]

16. Wow. Do we twist words on this board or what?

I didn't revolt against the public inauguration.

I revolted against the cost. I think it is inappropriate and unnecessary.

And, now, I am being blasted for expecting Obama to uphold the Constitution and fully investigate the crimes of the Bush administration. One million people dead in Iraq. Our treasury completely pillaged. If we don't investigate, this country will not gain any moral standing simply because we elected Obama.

I don't get this attitude, and frankly, it is frightening. Not for me, but for the implication of this country.

[geek tragedy]

20. You revolt against something Obama does every day.

You have as much mojo on this as the Birthers.

[Occam Bandage]

22. The cost is part and parcel of a public inauguration.

That was explained to you dozens of times over. You want to talk about "frightening?" Let's start with the immunity to fact that the revolt-prone seem to have developed.

[Kahuna]

94. Before your post, I was feeling like we finally have a day on DU without

a daily, 'Obama sucks because (fill in the blank)...,' post. Then WHAMMO!!! Like clockwork, I happened upon your thread. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[anonymous171]

15. Too late. You wasted your "revolt card" on Obama's inauguration

Sorry.

[debbierlus]

21. Oh, I am sorry. I thought this was a democratic discussion board

Where a person could express an opinion about the cost of an inauguration as excessive...

Did I stumble onto the Free Republic?

Yes, you are right. Obama does not have the responsibility to uphold the constitution, if he so chooses, and let him have his 160 million dollar party unquestioned.

Got it.

[HughMoran]

24. Well, the indignant card was still in the deck

Nice play!

[Occam Bandage]

25. It is. It's also a Democratic discussion board where people are free

to discount the opinions of perpetual malcontents.

[bvar22]

90. Or maybe you should edit your post to say...

...where people are free to attempt to discount the opinions..."

So far, your team has been less than successful in your "attempts".


Amnesty for War Criminals...YAY!!
If Obama syas it, we're FOR it!
Go Team!

[geek tragedy]

26. "His $160 Million dollar party." You sound like you picked up

some talking points at Free Republic.

[bvar22]

78. I'll give her one of mine.

I have an endless supply since I'm an American citizen.

[ecstatic]

105. roflmao!!!!! nt

[AtomicKitten]

19. I agree there must be a reckoning. In due time.

I agree that justice must be brought to bear, but I've watched you spew resentment toward the inauguration as this thread has proceeded, and it is clear you are getting your panties in a bunch prematurely. It's okay to celebrate the end of this 8-year nightmare. Really. Then it's show time.

[Maru Kitteh]

23. Who the fuck is so silly they think they can speak for the whole base? Really?

Christ on a cracker.

[debbierlus]

28. Fine, guys. Go party, and give Obama carte blanc -

He doesn't need to appoint a special prosecutor. You are right. He has no responsibility to investigate and ensure that the same type of thing will not be repeated in the future.

Absolutely, let's all shut up about the TARP funds as well and the disappearing bank money going to create mega-bank monopolies. You are right.

And, by no means should we dare say anything about clean coal and the myth of its existence. Indeed. Ignore Tennessee and the waste by-products. Look the other way as billions are invested in a theoretical use of clean coal.

And, I really do have some nerve complaining about a itty bitty 160 million dollar inauguration bash when the food pantry shelves are empty, vets are homeless, and the war continues on.

Oh, I will also shut up about Afghanistan.

And, the tax cuts that won't be ended for the wealthiest portion of the population (they do so need two extra years, they are struggling terribly).

I really must stop picking on Obama.

Wow. Just wow.

[Occam Bandage]

29. "I will also shut up about..."

This, sadly, is undoubtedly a lie.

[stillcool]

121. how prescient you are..

Do you really believe a special prosecutor will prosecute anyone but the grunts? Will that be a feel good for you? Do you have the same insight into how your representatives will vote on the issues that you have about what Obama will or will not do? Do you care what is in any final bill, or if it passes, or is it all a matter of your principle, and nothing to do with what might help a few people? I think you should email your reps and ask them to pre-emptively vote against anything Obama wants.

[Political Tiger]

30. If Obama doesn't investigate Bush

should the next president after Obama investigate Obama for not investigating Bush?

[Occam Bandage]

31. If the next President doesn't prosecute Obama for not prosecuting Bush, he owns Bush's war crimes.

Simple as that.

By the same token, every single President since Lincoln is to blame for Sherman's March to the Sea. And the next time some Repuke talks about Ronald Reagan, say, "Well, Reagan didn't prosecute Carter for not prosecuting Ford for not prosecuting Nixon for not prosecuting Johnson for not prosecuting Kennedy for not prosecuting Eisenhower for not prosecuting Truman for not prosecuting Roosevelt for not prosecuting Hoover for not prosecuting Coolidge for not prosecuting Harding for the Teapot Dome scandal. So if you think about it, Reagan owns that."

[tledford]

40. No, Obama owns it now, because...

...it is always the CURRENT President who is responsible for all the crime committed by every previous President. In fact, it is the U.S. President, alone among all human beings on the planet, who is responsible for Adam eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, so each and every President must prosecute his/her predecessor for every crime (or possible crime) committed by all human beings since the beginning of time.

lol

I enjoyed that.

[lonestarnot]

69. How many of those not prosecuted prior have committed so many serial killing offenses?

[EraOfResponsibility]

32. Keith O's special comment on Monday is going to be about this

I get the feeling he's gonna act like our friend debbie here. :)

[firedupdem]

34. He may agree that Bush should be investigated but he won't do this. n/t

[Political Tiger]

35. In a perfect world

Bush would have been prosecuted a long time ago.

In a perfect world, Reagan would have been prosecuted too, and Nixon....and the argument could be made that LBJ should have been prosecuted also.

And I'm sure the cons believe Bill Clinton should be sitting in jail now, along with Hillary.

But it's not a perfect world.

To say it's all up to Obama now sounds nice, and the thought of Bush sitting behind bars sure makes us all feel better, but in the real world it's just not going to happen.

[bvar22]

79. "We the people of the United States, ..

..in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice...."

I KNOW I've heard those words somewhere.
Help me out.
Where do they come from?

It seems to acknowledge that we are not perfect, but tasks ALL of us to keep moving toward perfection.

[Kahuna]

96. I can take that from Keith because he is generally very supportive..

He doesn't bash Obama on a daily like the OP. Keith has learned to pick his fights. Still, when he does, they're "his" fights. He doesn't attempt to speak for the "xo called base."

[MrSlayer]

33. Well go get your pitchfork and torch.

BushCo is walking away scott free. I very much doubt we are going to see any serious inquiries into the constitutional crimes that were committed.

[NYC_SKP]

36. Is a CAPS LOCK special prosecutor different from a lower case one?

I need to know so that I'll be appropriately outraged or not, as the "case" may be.

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

37. Take a chill pill and relax......

as time will tell.

You don't need to get the rope ready just yet.

[Hekate]

38. Good lord, debbie, calm down before you bust a gusset. I know you're unhappy, but ...

... you've got something against Obama every single day. And then you pursue your points, on and on and on.

We get it. You didn't want Obama in the first place. You Don't Like Him. But the whole point of an election is that a lot of people run and only one person gets the job. Your guy didn't get the job.

Well the last two presidential elections NONE of our guys got the job--it was stolen on behalf of our worst nightmare. Now the nightmare is over. Can't you at least console yourself that a Democrat won? Can't you at least wait until the man is sworn in before making all these accusations?

Please give it a rest -- and give yourself a rest.

Hekate

[Grateful for Hope]

39. This is what I am seeing also. n/t

[Number23]

113. Hekate, you should copy this post and paste it at will

Just take out "debbie" and insert the name of whoever is frothing at that particular moment.

You could save yourself alot of trouble because this certainly won't be the last time you'll post something like this to someone on DU.

[wyldwolf]

41. the base?

:shrug:

[mmonk]

42. I'm with you. I refuse to accept burial by commission.

[polichick]

44. I'm sure Jonathan Turley and others have given Obama an earful about this.

[bvar22]

84. Good.

I will support their effort by adding MY voice.

NO Amnesty for War Criminals, even if they are rich, white, and well connected.
Amnesty = anything less than full, transparent investigations and prosecutions.

[H2O Man]

45. "Wolf!" she cried

[Kahuna]

97. Ouch. Nail, meet head.

:applause:

[Number23]

114. Wow, you're on fire today! Hot and feisty!

It's a beautiful thing to see... :)

[mmonk]

46. I think this will depend on the AG and the Dept of Justice and Congress

ultimately. Obama, I think, can reestablish the executive branch's correct role but is not a prosecutor. Pressure by citizens and Civil libertarian groups as well as Constitutional scholars on Congress will determine ultimately what happens. This is my opinion. I do oppose death by commission. I think it is imperative something operable in the area of law is what is needed. I do not like the idea that has been suggested that more "laws" are needed to "perfect" anything.

[bvar22]

82. I agree.

Obama should appear to be above the fray. However, the ORDERS will be coming from the head of our Party.
If the War Criminals are prosecuted, or given amnesty, it will be because Obama wants it so.

That said, it is imperative that we keep up constant public pressure to encourage him to do the right thing. That includes using DU and the InterNet tubes to keep verbalizing our support for the prosecution of War Criminals (among other issues). This will logically include threats of withdrawing support in 2010.

Those attempting to suppress this effort are effectively supporting Amnesty for War Criminals.

[1776Forever]

47. Right now Biden and Obama are on the same footing - look to the future. But what about the past?

I found this remark Biden said on prosecuting Bush officials for torture: ‘I think we should be looking forwards, not backwards.’»

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/21/biden-prosecuting-torture/

More or less just what PE Obama stated. As for a Constitutional base for it I found this:

KEITH OLBERMANN “COUNT DOWN” INTERVIEW

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1224

Olbermann interview with Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor with George Washington University.

Jon, thanks for your time tonight.

JONATHAN TURLEY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: So, as overly dramatic as this question will sound, did Dick Cheney just confess to a war crime?

TURLEY: Yes, it’s an interesting question, isn’t it? It’s like that type of a Zen question. If someone commits a crime and everyone’s around to see it, and does nothing, is it still a crime?

(LAUGHTER)

TURLEY: And I think that’s really the argument of this administration. It can’t be a crime because no one is prosecuted us for it? But most certainly is a crime to participate, to create, to — in many ways — monitor a torture program. And, indeed, it’s one of the crimes that defines a nation committed to the rule of law.

If you have to create a new nation, one of the first things you do is to disavow this form of the illegality. So, you have the vice president sitting there, saying, “Yes, we talked about it, they came to me, I supported it and I helped to put it through.” The only problem is what he is describing is, most certainly and unambiguously, a war crime.

OLBERMANN: Except if, as you suggest, nobody prosecutes him for that, which jumps ahead to the lasting legacy of what happens if the next administration does not press this? Do we let, you know, the International Court at The Hague come in and take over all of our responsibilities for policing our own act here? Or where does this go domestically if he’s made such a statement?

TURLEY: Frankly, Keith, that’s what worries me the most, is that you can’t talk about change without having some moral component to it. It’s not just about creating jobs or lowering the price of gasoline. What occurred in the last eight years was an assault on who we are. And I think that President-elect Obama is going to have to decide whether he wants power without principle or whether he wants to start with the true change, to say that no matter where an investigation will take us, if there are crimes to be found, they will be prosecuted.

.....

Time will tell - but it doesn't look good right now that Bush/Cheney and his bunch will ever see the hand of justice until the meet their Maker. I could be wrong and I hope I am. Let's see when the Conyers report goes to the new AG. I for one will be watching closely!

[Raineyb]

104. I'm with Turley on this one

Generally speaking whenever a politician says "I want to look to the future not rehash the past" it's code for "I'm not going to do a damn thing to fix what's broken."

Clinton decided to look to the future and not investigate the first Bush President and the same assholes came back to fuck things up with the shrub.

Look to the future indeed. Those words never bode well coming out of the mouths of politicians.

Regards

[Enthusiast]

48. It is imperative that The Obama

Administration investigate some of the strange events that took place during the Bush presidency. I will be very disappointed in Obama if he chooses to ignore the rule of law. Blue collar criminals aren't given the slightest bit of consideration yet white collar crime has been rampant the last decade and goes largely unpunished.

[lostnotforgotten]

50. The Rule Of Law Must Prevail Or We Become No better Than Barbarians

eom

[mmonk]

53. We are already there. The question is whether we will correct it.

This top down rule and lap dog press situation must be reversed if we are to save ourselves.

[unapatriciated]

52. We should not " Be Ready To Make Nice"

History has shone us what happens when we do...
think Iran-Contra and Raygun, Bushed picked up where he left off.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8096466&mesg_id=8096466

[Richardo]

56. The base won't tolerate anything - that's what makes them the base.

[Medusa]

66. Hell will freeze over first

It ain't happening people. At most you *might* see some investigations of lower level officials but they ain't going after Bush-Cheney. I swear some of you around here need to get a better grip on reality.

[Kahuna]

98. DING DING DING DING!! The only way it could happen is if the majority

of Americans want it. Sadly, the M$M have done a splendid job of covering up for bushco. If we started in on bushco now, people would think we were nuts because they've been unaware of the crimes of bushco.

[BlooInBloo]

81. If by "the base" you mean "DUers who hate Obama", then yes.

[Kahuna]

93. I hope you get over yourself, REAL SOON....

:eyes:

[Cha]

95. You're already revolting.

have fun.

[Kahuna]

99. Rimshot! Very Groucho-esque!

:applause:

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ecstatic]

102. I don't think so. Many people are already at the "Bush who?" point

Looking forward and not back. Not saying it's the right approach, just that so many people are excited about Obama and not thinking about Bush.

[nodramamama]

110. See, if I stole a bike, people wouldn't care about me. But I'd be prosecuted anyway

The rule of law, in my view, should apply to everyone. WMD liars and bike thieves alike.

[ecstatic]

111. I agree. Madoff especially should be locked up

But here in the US, there are definitely double standards when it comes to justice.

[creeksneakers2]

106. I'm not as keen on prosecuting

as I am about the truth coming out. I'd like to know if the Bin Laden videos were fake and stuff like that. If the truth doesn't come out, the same criminals will devote their days to sabotaging Obama.

They do have to prosecute the folks who were in contempt of congress. Otherwise, future presidents can be like dictators.

[IsItJustMe]

116. I think it should be one of Obama's top priorities.

[specimenfred1984]

122. Excellent post, history never forgets war crimes

Too bad the same 2 aholes that troll/snip almost everyone on DU did it to you too in this thread, but I'm sure you understand their misdirections away from the morals we Americans hold dear are just that, misdirections. The horrible nature of the Bush-crimes will never be forgotten or forgiven.