Presidents Don't Prosecute Their Predecessors

[Beacool]

By David Shribman
May 3, 2009

When Thomas Jefferson succeeded John Adams, a contest that put America on such a different footing that it is remembered today as the Revolution of 1800, he did not seek to put members of the Adams administration on trial. When Warren G. Harding followed Woodrow Wilson in the White House in 1921, he did not put Edith Galt Wilson on trial for usurping the office of the presidency after Wilson's stroke. When Bill Clinton ended a dozen years of Republican rule in 1993, he did not try to prosecute Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush for deceiving the Congress over the Iran-Contra affair.

In the span of 220 years there have been 43 changes of presidents, and always this rule, never written but never broken, has prevailed: Presidents let their predecessors be judged by the merciless jury of history, not by the temporal verdicts of courts.

Commentators and historians often apply a facile shorthand to describe the fundamental principle (and surpassing greatness) of the American political system: Here the transfer of power from one party to another, or from one president to another, is accomplished by ballots, not bullets. That shorthand has an unspoken corollary: Here presidents and parties do not criminalize the policies of their predecessors.

That is why the nascent effort to investigate and perhaps prosecute members of the Bush administration is a dramatic departure from American tradition. It may be true that the Bush administration supported anti-terrorism policies that were deplorable, immoral -- and ultimately ineffective. But is the writing of legal briefs on highly controversial, contestable and, even now, unresolved questions of law criminal?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/03/look_to_the_future_not_the_past_96313.html

If he's correct, then only some minor staffers will be prosecuted if at all.

:(

[OmahaBlueDog]

1. Gerry Ford, who is generally regarded as a decent man, pretty much cast that precedent in concrete

End the national nightmare, then move quickly on.

[Beacool]

7. Ford didn't think that the nation wanted to got through the ordeal.

But Bush, et al's actions could be argued were far more damaging.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. Letting crimes go unpunished is bad for the country, period. Ford fucked us.

Clinton fucked us, and I hope that we have learned not to be so stupid as to let the perps walk free to victimize us yet again some other day.

[Thothmes]

50. IMO, that Nixon should be added to your list

LBJ should have been tried along side of Capts Medina and Calley for Mi Lai

[burning rain]

46. Nixon's and Kissinger's collaboration with Pinochet was right up there.

& keep in mind that Ford kept Kissinger on.

[Beacool]

98. Pinochet!!!!!

May that disgusting SOB rot in the eternal flames of hell when his time comes to depart this earth.

:mad:

[martymar64]

140. Pinochet's already there.

He's mighty crispy by now. He died in 06.

[avaistheone1]

123. Ford made a major mistake.

The swamp should have been drained and cleaned.

[Colobo]

20. Ford condemned Nixon by "pardoning" him.

You only "pardon" someone who is guilty of something...

[OmahaBlueDog]

23. True that...let's hope Obama doesn't similarly "condemn" Bush

[lame54]

56. cheney rummy and rove were all part of the nixon administration...

and on they rolled - thanks ford

[Beacool]

99. They learned their lesson well from the master.

:scared:

[Occam Bandage]

94. That precedent was nearly 200 years old.

:shrug:

[d_b]

2. yes

the temporal verdicts of courts is just for us piss ants.

[Beacool]

5. Damn, I wanted to see at least Cheney and Rumsfeld on the hot seat!!!

Even more than doofus Bush.

x(

[d_b]

6. me too

Bush is irrelevant.

[ProSense]

3. Why We Must Prosecute: Torture Is a Breach Of International Law

I hope that the United States has turned the page on those times and is returning to the values that sustained our country for so many years. But we cannot expect to regain our position of leadership in the world unless we hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect of others. That means punishing the most senior government officials responsible for these crimes. We have demanded this from other countries that have returned from walking on the dark side; we should expect no less from ourselves.

link

The predecessor argument is completely lame.

[Beacool]

9. Maybe so, but would the nation have the stomach to see a former president prosecuted?

They certainly would not support an international body prosecuting one of our own since it could set a dangerous precedent that could affect future presidents and the actions that they may need to take to safeguard the nation.

[csziggy]

24. Yes. I've been pissed since Ford pardoned Noxin

And Reagan was let off the hook since he was already so senile that it was useless.

Each of the Republican regimes since Noxin has gotten away with more and worse crimes. For the future of our country we need to put a stop to this and hold this last set accountable.

As for the "dangerous precedent that could affect future presidents and the actions that they may need to take to safeguard the nation" the Bush regime violated laws that our country and the international community have agreed to. Those crimes did not "safeguard the nation" - they added to our future danger and created more animosity towards the USA. Bush's policies and abuses became the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda could have ever had.

If we do not prosecute for the rendition and torture of prisoners, no American leader will be respected and Americans will be in more danger in the future. We must prosecute to restore the US's standing internationally.

[bottomtheweaver]

17. Yes. And yes beacool, th nation has the stomach to prosecute,

or were you out of town in 1973 and 1998?

[Beacool]

19. 1973 and 1998?

In 1973 Nixon resigned, but was not prosecuted. In 1998 Clinton was impeached over BS charges after 5 years of a witch hunt and was censured, but did not resign. Neither of these two presidents was prosecuted in criminal court.

[bottomtheweaver]

22. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment, Clinton was impeached.

There's no sign that the nation lacks the stomach to prosecute its presidents.

[OmahaBlueDog]

26. But neither was prosecuted

Nixon was pardoned prior to trial in the Federal Courts. Clinton was allowed a "pay-the-ticket" plea bargain upon his departure, and avoided trial.

Impeachment does not equal prosecution; it merely allows the officeholder to be removed so prosecution may commence.

[bottomtheweaver]

28. Third time's the charm.

The point is that there's no lack of will to prosecute.

[OmahaBlueDog]

31. No, the point is that there is a lot of will to remove them from office

..once removed from office, the will to take further action fades quickly.

I don't think Obama will go after Bush in the US Courts for the reasons cited in the OP. I think, maybe, a case will be made against Cheney, but I doubt they'll aim even that high.

Given that this is the case, my question is will the US turn over Bush, Cheney,Rummy, or Condi to the World Court if international war crimes charges are brought. That is territory entirely without precedent.

[bottomtheweaver]

34. The OP is ridiculous propaganda. There's no lack of will to punish these monsters.

Pandemic scare or no this isn't going away and in fact is building steam, domestically and internationally. Maybe the bushlers will manage to blow it off the headlines for good with another "terror" attack or some other nasty trick but for the first time I'm beginning to doubt it. People are angry and they're looking for answers, and the buck, as they say, stops in the Oval Office.

[OmahaBlueDog]

37. I admire your passion, but I don't believe there is nearly as much will as you do

People here at DU are angry and looking for answers. We care, and we get it. The rest of America (that were not Bush supporters) is wondering when Obama will end the recession. They are sad about "....the torture thingy, y'know, but gosh -- we're talking about terrorists here.... what else were they supposed to do, ask them questions over lattes at Starbucks?"

The fact that members of the uniformed military continue to speak out against the CIA and recount stories of walking out of interrogations does give me some (not a lot) of hope that we might move forward with prosecutions. They, more than anyone -- more than lawyers or politicians -- can make a case to Joe SixPack about why torture doesn't work, and is not only wrong, but a damned fool dumb idea.

[bottomtheweaver]

39. Yes, there's wishful thinking sure, but there's also last November.

I don't think Obama and the Dem congress are purely the result of economic worries. In fact, I think economic worries not only ranked behind the war and the corruption, but are if anything increasing the appetite for prosecutions.

It's kind of sub-rosa, in that you don't see it in the media at all, but you do see it everywhere else. DU is part of the internet after all and the internet is kind of all there is at the moment. College kids too, even conservative ones, are waking up. It's partly a hunch, yeah, but then there's last November, so I think it's for real.

[BzaDem]

44. OK, so your logic is that a vote for Obama is a vote to prosecute Bush.

And your evidence is that DU is part of the Internet, and the Internet is "kind of all there is at the moment." :rofl: Please look up the definition of "echo chamber."

It's one thing to believe yourself that Bush should be prosecuted, but it is laughable to claim that most Americans feel the same way.

[bottomtheweaver]

45. I'm generally very suspicious of people who twist my words

in an effort to defend the bushlers and their crimes, and this is no exception.

[BzaDem]

47. Congratulations on being suspicious.

Not sure what that adds to the conversation, but whatever.

[Common Sense Party]

87. There is no widespread, mainstream desire to prosecute the * Admin.

It just doesn't exist. The general consensus is "* was a huge screwup, and one of the biggest mistakes our country ever made. Now, let's get this economy fixed and get these wars ended."

The drumbeats you hear for Cheney's and Rumsfield's scalps are ALL coming from the left, left side of the political spectrum and blogosphere.

[bottomtheweaver]

102. People know right from wrong, and they know they're being lied to.

Don't expect to see it on the CIA News Network or in the NYT or WaPo, but why do you think all those establishment papers that wouldn't dream of telling you the truth about anything are going under? Because people aren't buying their bullshit. If they were, a certain Ike-like "war hero" and his telegenic fluffer would be in the White House, not a virtual unknown who got started in politics working for Holy Rosary parish in Chicago.

[Common Sense Party]

112. Those papers have been dying for years. It's called the internet.

You've heard of it.

[bottomtheweaver]

116. Yes that was one of my points.

It's bigger than the media and beyond it. It's also bigger than Obama which is why he might have to let the chips fall whether the CIA mockingbirds like this clown are pushing it or not.

[Foolacious]

30. Not 1973....

Nixon resigned in 1974.

[Beacool]

36. True, but didn't the whole mess start in 1973?

I was too young to remember. I guess I could google it to be more precise with the dates.

[NoPasaran]

65. The Watergate breakin was June of 1972

The story was pretty much ignored by everyone but the Washington Post. The nationally-televised hearings of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Practices (the Ervin Committee) during the summer on 1973 made the story too big to ignore. After the White House taping system's existence was revealed in testimony, the story became that of a holding action by Nixon to control what tapes and in what form his conversations would be revealed. (Meanwhile, in the fall of 1973, Nixon's despicable VP Spiro Agnew was forced to reign after being tied to an unrelated corruption investigation.) During the summer of 1974, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on a bill of impeachment as Nixon continued to defend his position in the courts. Finally, in August, the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon would have to release the "smoking gun tape", which made it clear that the President had participated in the cover-up. Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974.

[Beacool]

110. I always wondered why he did it.

What did he expect to learn from breaking into the DNC's headquarters? What was the point of the whole thing? Why risk his presidency over this?

:(

[NoPasaran]

141. I have a vague recollection

I have a vague recollection that the burglars were looking for documents that were supposed to link McGovern to Castro. Frankly, it was Nixon's deep-seated paranoia and insecurity that led to the break in.

[Revolution9]

61. nixon resigned because the trials were coming.

and yes bill was chased around for a dress stain. point is nation has the stomach to prosecute.
the right trying to convince us we do not is just the right trying to save its own ass.

[onenote]

79. nixon resigned because impeachment was coming

whether he would have been prosecuted had he been impeached is a question no one can ever answer.

But those who believe that there is a great silent majority jonesing for prosecuting chimpy and his gang have the same burden as every group claiming to be part of a silent majority -- prove it.

[Revolution9]

88. a trial is a trial

impeachment. criminal. whatever.

he seen the writing on the wall.

america has the stomach for trials.

our leaders just don't have the backbone.

[onenote]

91. all trials aren't alike especially when one's a criminal prosecution and the other is an impeachment

in which the sole penalty is the removal of the person from office. Saying that the public has the stomach for an impeachment trial does not mean the public has the stomach for a criminal prosecution. A couple of other points, whether the public at large had the stomach for the Clinton impeachment is something that can be debated. It certainly did not help the repubs in the next election cycle. And while the public clearly had the stomach for an impeachment trial of Nixon, the same apparently was never the case when it came to chimpy, no matter how much many of us believed impeachment was warranted. There never was a significant bi-partisan call for impeachment proceedings with respect to chimpy as there was with nixon. Part of the reason is that Nixon was seen as having committed political crimes for his personal political beneift -- i.e., to subvert the democratic process in order to gain and hold power. To may people, chimpy's excesses were committed in an effort to protect the country. We may think that is ridiculous, but the fact remains that even as the details emerge about waterboarding etc, the public remains very closely divided as to how wrong it was to use those techniques, even among a number of people who concede that they constituted torture.

[Optical.Catalyst]

49. We must prosecute to keep the Bush situation from happening again

Make a mental list of the things the Bush Administration did to this country

Illegal torture of foreign citizens

Illegal war in Iraq

No bid contracts to companies that they previously had financial interests in

Suspension of citizens' rights with the Patriot Act

Transfer of 2 trillion dollars to their friends in the defense industry

Ravaging the economic framework of not just the United States, but the whole world

We need to set a precedent today to prevent future Presidents from repeating Bush's crimes.

It is way past time to prosecute.

[Supersedeas]

66. the Standards have changed

[MADem]

4. It's a small club, is why. How many living presidents are there at any one time?

Right now, we've got quite a few--Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush...but even at that, there's only five guys in the "club."


Ford pardoned Nixon. He used to carry a little blurb in his wallet, Ford did, that talked about how acceptance of a pardon necessitated acknowledgment of guilt. That's probably the closest any President came to holding a predecessor accountable. Ironically, Ford wasn't an elected President.

You don't have to convict them in court to convict them in the court of public opinion. With Presidents, and more recently with Vice Presidents, too, legacy is everything. If you deny them a decent legacy, it's the same as ripping out their soul and crapping on it.

[Beacool]

10. Well, Bush has pretty much been convicted in the court of public opinion.

Cheney even more so. The only way either one could possibly be redeemed in the eyes of the public is if, God forbid, another attempt is successful and lives are lost. Then they would start with the "I told you so" and the "Bush protected us from further attacks".

:-(

[Karenina]

48. And it is up to the American public to INSIST in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS

that they be held accountable to the RULE OF LAW.

[LooseWilly]

8. In other words, Nixon was right.

"When a president does it, it is not illegal."

If I ever become president, I'm gonna rob a bank. Just for fun...

[Beacool]

11. I think that the only way a president could be prosecuted

is if he committed a clear cut crime, such as murder. Anything else would be dismissed after much noise making from the opposite side. Both parties protect each other. They know fully well that if they are on top now, they will be down eventually and that what goes around comes around.

:shrug:

[LooseWilly]

14. As long as the victim lives to apologize,

like the guy Cheney shot in the face, then it's all good...

[Beacool]

21. Exactly!!

I venture that no criminal charges will be brought against Bush and Cheney, probably not even against Rumsfeld and Condi.

[democrat2thecore]

12. But don't dismiss possible charges from The Hague - these "leaders" won't be able to travel! -nt

[Beacool]

13. In Bush's case, he couldn't care less as long as he can still go to his precious ranch.

This is a wealthy guy who didn't travel abroad until well into his 40s.

[WeDidIt]

69. He apparently despised his "ranch"

The only reason he even bought the thing was to appear "folksy" to the rubes. He bought it before he ran for president at the urging of Rove.

First thing he did when he was just about done and was about to "go home", he puts the "ranch" up for sale and buys a home in a gated community.

[TankLV]

90. Actually, I thought he bought it AFTER the Selection...

[paulk]

125. actually, he bought it in '99

but they didn't live there until after the selection.

I always thought the funniest thing was that it had been a pig farm before -

[Beacool]

111. He sold it?

I didn't know that. I know that he bought a house in Dallas, but thought that he kept the ranch as a weekend retreat.


:eyes:

[bottomtheweaver]

15. Must be nice to have the CIA write your columns for you.

And this is complete bullshit from beginning to end. I hadn't heard this little mockingbird chirping since I stopped watching PBS propaganda fests but he's just another media asset, and in case there was any doubt, this proves it.

[guyton]

16. International law ...

The difference this time is that we are obligated under our existing treaties to prosecute cases of torture. It's not a matter of "criminalize the policies of their predecessors" ... what they were doing was clearly already criminal and only the nuttiest of fruitcakes can claim otherwise.

We run the risk of being labeled a rogue state if we don't prosecute. Heck, not just being labeled, but *being* a rogue state.

[SKKY]

18. My real fear in all of this is two-fold

1. If we DON'T prosecute those from the Bush administration responsible for this mess, it basically gives grounds for any future President to do it as well. I don't want to think I spent 20 years of my life serving a nation that, as standard practice, tortures.

2. It will show that, at the first chance Obama had to spend some of his political capital and do the right thing, he chose to do the opposite and "let bygones be bygones". What kind of message does that send?

[Beacool]

27. Let me then inform you that the US has tortured for decades.

Worse yet, it has TAUGHT others how to torture at the School of the Americas. I've seen some of the victims of these techniques, the lucky ones who survived and did not end up in a mass grave. The US has also financed and supported the overthrow and assassination of duly elected leaders.

Forgot to add, Obama will do what's good for Obama; just like any other president who preceded him. In that respect both parties are only a hair apart.

[OmahaBlueDog]

29. In a more general sense, police departments throughout the US used torture to coerce confessions

A practice still employed (albeit less commonly) today.

[Beacool]

33. It happens all the time.

Remember the famous case in NY where one perp had a nightstick shoved up his rectum? Far from being the only case where a person has been abused or beaten up. In NY right now two cops have been indicted for raping a drunk woman whom they had taken home after a cab driver called them because she was so intoxicated that she had thrown up in his cab. The cops took her home and went back twice to her Apt. to rape her. Unfortunately for them, the security cameras of the building recorded their comings and goings. Otherwise, they would have gotten away with it. Then again, they still may.

[CakeGrrl]

32. The windup and the pitch!

Here's the real reason for the OP - an excuse to deliver the Obama insult:

"Obama will do what's good for Obama".

Don't even bother trying to say you would have said the same thing if Hillary was POTUS. You never miss a chance to slip in the Obama slight.

:rofl:

[Beacool]

35. In that respect, I would say the same for ANY American president.

We protect our own at the expense of the world. Point at a continent on a map and we probably have stuck our nose in their business at one point or another. Usually to the detriment of the locals.

[FrenchieCat]

38. It's like someone's parents was made out of glass!

SO See-thru!

[Beacool]

40. OK, if Bush and Cheney are charged and prosecuted in a court of law

I will duly apologize here in big bold letters. But I could almost bet that nothing will happen to either one of them, regardless of who had won the election.

:shrug:

[dionysus]

55. now now Bea, try not to be so transparent...

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

57. "Obama will do what's good for Obama" That's the REAL point of this OP, isn't it?

[ClarkUSA]

58. *self-delete*

[AtomicKitten]

77. Yep, it's the bitter nougat center. n/t

[blm]

80. and Bill Clinton kept GHWBush's secrecy and privilege protected while maintaining torture tradition

My....what a talented multi-tasker that Bill was. And how did that all work out for this country, anyway? Good?

Listen, Bea - Bill didn't HAVE to prosecute, he just didn't have to get in the way of those FEW HONEST lawmakers who did work their asses off to uncover illegal operations. But.....he did. Obama doesn't NEED to be a fucking traitor to the Constitution just because Bill did it.

[Beacool]

81. That's precisely the point of the OP.

We have had 43 presidents prior to the current one and we'll have more to come, but certain things will not change.

[blm]

86. Your point is to NOT EXPECT justice now because Bill WOULDN'T let honest lawmakers do their job

and INSTEAD protected GHWBush.

Bill didn't HAVE to lift a finger, Bea...but, he DID....to get in the WAY.

Excusing the TREACHERY of Clinton's alliance with BushInc is the real point you make....just as you always do....anything for your pals, and screw the Constitution and democracy.

[Lilith Velkor]

92. And yet you give Carter a free pass for his treacherous alliance with NixonInc

Is that rank hypocrisy I smell?

Why yes, yes it is.

[blm]

96. Your need to reach for Carter has nothing to do with me.

.

[Lilith Velkor]

100. Your need to cover for Carter's criminal complicity with Nixon absolutely does.

It is grossly hypocritical to excuse such behavior.

[blm]

118. I never did that....but, funny you would think Carter giving Nixon a pass is criminal but Clinton

actively covering up BCCI matters for Poppy Bush and Jackson Stephens, and SIDING with Poppy's policy on IranContra and CIA drugrunning is defensible because he's YOUR hero.

[Lilith Velkor]

124. You only think he's my hero because you are on an anti-Clinton jihad

I am a leftist, I don't even like Clinton.

But what I like even less is seeing people being constantly harassed for liking Clinton on a forum that's supposed to be for Democrats.

The rank hypocrisy concerning the other Democratic former President is just icing on the cake.

Speaking of other Democrats in the White House, you are really not going to like the current one...unless, as I suspect, policy is not really your issue.

[blm]

127. Policy and open government are my ONLY issues - you reach to Carter ignorant of my lack of defense

of Carter on any policy where he allowed government secrecy.

Why do you assume I'd defend Carter on open government issues where he failed to reveal the full scope of Nixon's WH treachery, when I stopped defending Clinton some years ago for the coverups he allowed throughout the 90s to protect BushInc on illegal operations and policies that started in Nixon's WH?

That hypocrisy you rail against should be your own. I don't think Carter should have allowed Nixon and his BushInc cronies from being fully revealed, and I don't think Clinton should be defended for his actions throughout the 90s that gave BushInc all the cover and the room to CONTINUE their illegal operations.

[Lilith Velkor]

128. If that were true, you would make OPs instead of spamming other DUers' posts

But it's not, and you know that if you did, you would rightly be called on the monotonous "Everything is Clinton's fault" refrain so beloved of Republicans.

Oh, and if you don't like it when people put words in your keyboard, perhaps you should stop doing it to others.

[blm]

130. Good luck with trying to make YOUR MISTAKE into someone else's.

.

[Lilith Velkor]

132. Oh, it was MY MISTAKE you put words in my mouth?

MY MISTAKE that you never said a fucking thing about Carter while yammering "Clinton's fault/Clinton's fault/Clinton's fault" nonstop for YEARS?

Yet another boxcar added to the ever growing train of FAIL. Toot toot!

[blm]

133. Hey - if, after 9-11 and 8yrs of Bush2 you want to defend Clinton's alliance with Poppy

then have at it. Those of us who saw a 9-11 and BushInc's fascist agenda coming years ago, will keep plugging away to stay on top of the open government issue till it becomes a priority for more citizens willing to stick their necks out for real democracy, despite the fact there are always folks like you who see enemies in those who look for accountability in our government.

PS ....Your silly Carter-Clinton debate is pathetic in its reach and in its failed goal.

[Lilith Velkor]

135. Accountability my ass, you are trying to blame Clinton for 9/11 just like the Repukes do.

The fact that you continue to try to put words in my mouth indicates that the truth of my actual words must hurt.

Why don't you try blaming Clinton for the economic collapse while you're at it? You can even drag out that old Glass-Steagall repeal bullshit, and pretend that those 90 votes in the Senate couldn't override a veto.

Come on. You know you want to.

[blm]

137. Please point out where ANY Repub admits Poppy Bush's criminal BCCI and CIA drugrunning operations

led directly to the growing global terrorism networks, 9-11 and this Iraq war, and then show where they fault Clinton for protecting the secrecy and privilege of Bush and his cronies.


False distractions ALL ya got?

[Lilith Velkor]

145. They don't care, they just want people to blame Clinton for 9/11, like you are doing

And those criminal associations date back to Nixon - US peak oil meant that the Texas Mafia had to get in bed with Saudi. 9/11 was in the pipeline a long ass time.

You remember Air America? (No, not that one.) After all those years of running heroin from Southeast Asia, running coke from South America must have been a cinch.

Anyway, my point is that there are less self-defeating ways to get your message across than running around telling Democrats that Clinton is teh eevol. Even Republicans are hip to the fact that that meme is too fucking old and overused to be effective anymore.

[blm]

146. I state above that the books should've been opened on Nixon WH as that is where the fascist agenda

began in earnest and many of the same players have been involved. It's been important to put Clinton's ACTIVE role protecting BushInc's secrecy in the 90s into the discussions of the last 5yrs, since Clinton was actively working to protect Bush2 by defending his decisions on terrorism and Iraq war in every high profile interview he did before the 2004 election, and even helped Bush SELL invading Iraq to DC Dems and world leaders like Tony Blair.

Clintons increased focus on their own when the debate turned to whether or not she should be the Dem nominee. They have been awful for Democrats and for the openness of our government and mainly because they protected the powerful elite like the Bushes.

It's a mystery that any self-proclaimed 'leftist' would choose to defend Clintons and attack critics of their alliance with the Bushes.

[Beacool]

95. OK, how did Clinton protect Bush Sr.?

Refresh my memory, what was Sr. accused of doing that warranted a criminal prosecution?

[blm]

97. OMG....you are NOT really going to pretend Poppy didn't DO anything are you?

Geez.....read a government report every now and then.....please.

[LooseWilly]

107. Iran Contra

Bush Sr. was in it up to his ass, or at least so it is generally believed.
Of course, since North kept his trap shut, I suppose those investigations were technically completed before Clinton even got into office...

We need a president who's willing to go back and frame Bush Sr. so that we can get our pound of flesh. And Jr. too!! There were a couple of Oakland cops that lost their jobs about 5 years ago for framing thugs and dealers that they couldn't convict legitimately... maybe just give them jobs at the DoJ?...

[Beacool]

113. I thought that Iran Contra was Reagan's doing.

Even though, with Bush's background, it doesn't surprise me to find out that he was involved.

:-(

[blm]

119. You really need to read more. Plus, IranContra was another aspect to the BIGGER operation of BCCI

and CIA drugrunning, and the arming and funding of global terrorism through illegal covert operations.

[Beacool]

120. I read plenty,

but obviously we are not reading the same books. Any suggestions?

[blm]

121. Go to National Security Archives and dive into the reports on BCCI.

BTW, Reagan's family hated Poppy Bush for maneuverings that led to IranContra, an operation that HE controlled while Reagan was told only what Poppy wanted him to know at the time.

People forget that Poppy was CIA long before he landed on the ticket in 1980.

[Beacool]

129. Thanks

I knew that Reagan strongly disliked Bush. In all his years in the WH, I think I read that he was only invited once for dinner. Which begs the question, why did he choose him as his VP in the first place?

[blm]

131. He was FORCED into it, when the REAL money people got involved with the general election.

They had put Bush up to win in 1980, but, Reagan started winning the rank and file votes during the primary. To protect their agenda, Reagan was forced to accept Bush on the ticket. Reagan was allowed to take the lead on Russia, but, Bush had control over the oil regions and its policies.

[Beacool]

136. Thanks for the clarification

It's very interesting. I'm going to have to read more about it.

:hi:

[JeffR]

41. Not to put too fine a point on it... screw this. It's totally specious.

The "dramatic departure from American tradition" in at least a theoretical sense was the Bush MisAdministration, not the "nascent effort" to staunch the wounds it inflicted on the ravaged, exhausted, prostrate body politic.

[sampsonblk]

42. Agreed - nt

[elocs]

43. Yes, that is true, but my guess is that here at DU nobody wants to read that reality.

Yes, some minor staffers may be prosecuted, but it will never happen to Bush. Reality is a harsh mistress.

[Beacool]

53. Because here we live in an alternate reality.

We somehow think that the US tortures during the Bush years were the exemption to the rule. There are plenty of people worldwide who, if they are lucky enough to still be alive, would be rolling their eyes at that one. Who indoctrinated and trained the members of every military junta in Latin America? Waterboarding is nothing to what was done to some people. We have financed and supported many governments who were brutal to their people and we never batted an eyelash because it served our self interest. And now we beat our chests in sheer horror because a few terrorists had some water poured over them and were sleep deprived? Please............

:eyes:

[Lilith Velkor]

104. It was done OPENLY during Bush2

Previous administrations did it by proxy for two reasons: 1) so that the USG appeared to have clean hands, and 2) to give jobs to all those Nazis we brought over in Operation Paperclip.

Also, it's not just "a few terrorists," it's also innocent people who got turned in for the reward money, and cases of mistaken identity like that poor Canadian guy.

[bottomtheweaver]

105. Bingo. We have a problem and it isn't just the bushlers,

it's the shadow government they operate or whatever the hell they do. Basically the spooks have us by the throat and they're strangling us to death. That's why torture is off the table.

[WinkyDink]

51. Well, have we had TORTURERS before??

[totodeinhere]

84. Yes, torture (waterboarding) has been committed by US agents several times in the past.

On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html

The New Yorker has a good investigative piece on the history of the use of waterboarding by US troops in the Philippines in 1901-2.

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/20/american-waterboardi.html

[Stuckinthebush]

52. Obama should work with the world court in the background

Don't prosecute Bush here but encourage the prosecution of Bush under international law.

[Beacool]

54. It ain't going to happen.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

59. Thanks for the op-ed from a Republican-owned website discredited by Nate Silver during the GE.

Sure sounds like the author of this opinion piece is a conservative who's praying out loud. Guess you just had to share, eh?

[Beacool]

60. Get off your blinders.

Bush and Cheney will never be prosecuted.

:eyes:

[Revolution9]

62. if the heat stays on something will have to be done.

this deflecting "it will never happen" meme insures what they want. to mire opinion into apathy.
to make us give up and "move on".
nope.
keep the pressure on and the goal in sight.

[Beacool]

63. It's not apathy, it's how we conduct "business" in this country.

I was raised mainly overseas as the daughter of a diplomat and have seen up close and personal the consequences of our meddling in other nations' affairs. In this particular area, it doesn't much matter who is president. If by some miracle I'm wrong, I'll be beyond thrilled to have misjudged the current administration's commitment to prosecute torturers and those who authorized them (including Bush and Cheney).

[DatManFromNawlins]

143. Exactly what "heat" are you talking about?

Because there isn't any in Washington. And internet message board anger doesn't translate into action when the dude who is making the call already has your vote in his pocket come 2012.

[ClarkUSA]

64. "Bush and Cheney will never be prosecuted." But that's up to AG Holder, isn't it?

Constitutional law professor President Obama said as much and I doubt you know more than I. The opinion of a conservative
writing for a Republican-owned website counts for less than nothing. But obviously, you found someone who reflects your
viewpoint.

[Beacool]

67. Clark, you're being naive at best.

Holder doesn't operate in a vacuum. Believe what you want, but Bush and Cheney will remain free as the wind.

[ClarkUSA]

72. "Bush and Cheney will remain free as the wind." That will be up to AG Holder, not President Obama.

Unlike past presidents, at least President Obama has instructed AG Holder to investigate what can be done, which is the most he can
do under the Constitution. Obviously the OP source doesn't know that.

[liquid diamond]

106. For once you and I agree.

It's not as simple as Bush broke the law, so he should be punished. I'm a realist. If Obama goes after the former president, it would further divide the nation and set a frightening precedent. Speaking of legacies, would Obama want to be the first president to prosecute his predecessor? Think of what kind of hate that would inspire in the GOP.

[Bluenorthwest]

68. How wise is it, do you think, for a politician to cover up

torture and attempt to condone it by asking the people to follow the law, but refusing to enforce the law on his peers? We know there was rape and murder. If Obama wants to declare that rape is okie-dokie if you have a note from Cheney, he is not a good man.

Rape and murder and torture are not 'policy' being criminalized, they are crimes being made into policy.

[ejpoeta]

70. PRESIDENTS shouldn't prosecute anyone.... the department of justice

should. and congress should also.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Beacool]

76. I'm sure that the OP is fully aware of that fact.

;)

[ejpoeta]

85. i'm sorry. it's just that i keep hearing how obama would prosecute

torture and it would be a political thing or whatever. the justice department does prosecuting. and the MSM just keeps pushing this BS meme. they try to make it like it WASN'T a crime. it wasn't torture. bullshit! just because i change what I call it doesn't make it any less torture. It's like me robbing a bank and saying it wasn't robbery because i restricted it to banks. do you think that would fly in a court?? would there be a debate whether what i did was illegal? but it's not robbery!! it's borrowing from a financial institution. hmmm.... somehow i don't think that would stop anyone from prosecuting a bank robbery. and i am not directing any of this at you, i am venting because i think it's ridiculous to be arguing these things.

[Hosnon]

114. And the Attorney General is appointed by the President. The DoJ is in no real

way independent of the President.

[ClarkUSA]

122. Exactly... the OP's news source is from a Republican-owned website - ergo, the misleading title.

[Spazito]

71. The crimes committed by the Bush administration were...

international in scope. The broke both US AND International Law. It was Reagan who signed the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which committed the US to this:

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

The decision whether to prosecute previous Presidents was solely a domestic matter, involving no other nation, no other laws. That is NOT the case with the Bush administration's illegal actions.

If the US does NOT investigate and, where necessary, prosecute those involved in torture, it breaches the UN agreement and will be seen as untrustworthy in fulfilling it's commitments which will have a very negative effect on US interests internationally. Were the Bush administration to be held to account by a foreign country ie Spain because the US did not act as it should, there will be little improvement in the US standing in the world which, again, will be costly to the interests of the US.

[Beacool]

78. No argument from me.

I'm just saying that I can almost bet my bottom dollar that Bush and Cheney will never face a court of law. Here or elsewhere. There'll be a lot of noise all around and then it'll die down. Oh, I'm sure that some would love to get the chance to go after these two and others in the previous administration. But they'll be quietly persuaded that it wouldn't be in the best interests of their nations to do. Presidents come and go, but certain things never change.

[Spazito]

83. If the UN does not carry through with their commitment ....

wrt the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against torture it will be weakened and when push comes to shove the US is NOT greater than the sum of nations as hard as that is for some Americans to accept. The US of today is much weaker in influence internationally than the US was prior to the Bush administration.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

74. lawyers prosecute not presidents

but there is always a first time

[spanone]

75. then there really are no laws, are there.

[bdamomma]

82. if no prosecution for these thugs, the new and improved PNAC

crowd will be back, what gutless people!!

[TankLV]

89. None of the rest were WAR CRMINIALS..."small" difference...

Shribman can bite me...he knows SHIT...

not other CRIMES have risen to THIS LEVEL!!!

THEY IMPEACHED ONE FOR A FUCKING BLOW JOB, GODDAMMIT!!!

[Lilith Velkor]

93. Nixon sure as fuck was. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

101. If Nixon and Reagan had been prosecuted, we would've never seen a Bush administration...

[Thothmes]

103. Or if Johnson had been prosecuted.

[MarjorieG]

108. All true, we'd be expending time and good will by not pushing for agenda, while drama takes over.

I do hope there is enough investigation to determine how the torture program came to be, was it a push for Iraq link? Why continued?

[Duer 157099]

109. ...which quite simply explains why it continues n/t

[quakerboy]

115. Presidents Don't torture.

Presidents aren't multiracial.
Presidents don't Start unjustified wars with lies.
Presidents don't Steal elections.


Opps... wait, I guess sometimes things change.

[mmonk]

117. It is the duty of all elected officials once taking the pledge

and duties of office to faithfully execute and uphold the laws of this nation. I see nothing in the Constitution that relieves any office holder from that duty.

[karynnj]

126. Didn't W open an investigation into Clinton's pardons and

their actions as they left the White House?

Not to mention, I never got away with arguing that "everybody else did something", I was expected to do what my values said was right - a standard I then held my kids to - and which I hope they still believe as adults.

[ItNerd4life]

134. Prosecution could set a very dangerous precedent

The definition of torture was given by many independent lawyers. If the legal opinion they gave is suddenly considered
wrong and they can be prosecuted for it, it means lawyers will not be giving legal advice.

Imagine if you will, 8 years from now a Republican get's elected. He claims that the government spending by the Obama
presidency was illegal and immoral. They could then go after him because their definition of illegal and immoral is different than ours.

Not a good precedant to set.

[Beacool]

138. I think that it was precisely his point.

That prosecuting a president would set a bad precedent.

;-)

[dflprincess]

142. Not prosecuting reenforces a dangerous precedent that has already been set

every time these crooks (or their ancestors) get by with something they spend a few years in exile and then come back worse than ever....Look at Jeb, he's already trying for a Bushco comeback by reforming PNAC under a different name.

[blm]

144. 9-11 was LETHAL. There would've been NO 9-11 event if BCCI matters were resolved OPENLY in the 90s

instead of deepsixed and covered up by a powerful Democratic ally of GHWBush, Jackson Stephens, and the Dubai and Saudi royals.

[MasonJar]

139. So? No one has committed the level of or the number of crimes of

the GWB administration. Also perhaps had we investigated and prosecuted some of our former administrations we would never have killed one million innocent Iraqis, including mostly civilians, many of whom were children who will never have a chance at life because of America and its allegedly elected government. I say investigate the myriad of Bushista crimes against humanity and the American public and then hang the guilty as traitors. Enough was enough a long time ago. I am usually against capital punishment, but some crimes are so heinous that they must be subject to the ultimate punishment.

[Voltaire]

147. If there are no prosecutions

Then this will happen again in a more virulent form. So long as there are conservatives and republicans, this will happen again. Screw precedent, this country needs to have the law adhered to right now.

Like the old commercial used to say...you can pay me now, or you can pay me later.