If the Obama admnistration prosecutes bushco, they will be pretty singular

[cali]

not just in terms of U.S. history, but in the context of modern history. It's not just the U.S. that doesn't prosecute past power holders. Add France, Spain and dozens of other countries that have seen serious abuses of power in their immediate past.

Should Obama do it? I think so, but I do recognize that this is something that is rarer than hen's teeth.

[Orsino]

1. Even half-assed prosecution might be a deterrent.

If people are convicted, even of lesser offenses than actual torture, this might be a real service to future generations.

[cali]

2. I don't think prosecution acts as a deterrent

The Nuremberg trials don't appear to have done that, but we're the nation that trumpets that we're superior, and that no one is above the law. For that reason alone we should try to live up to our own hype. And personally speaking, I want the perps to be punished for their bad acts.

[Orsino]

5. The Nuremberg trials are one of the best arguments for prosecution as deterrent.

Prosecution brings things to light, and put the offender's face out there for everyone to see--it's why the Right was so eager to depose Bill Clinton. Those who can be shamed are, and even the young who didn't witness the crimes get see the defendants pilloried or cleared. Prosecution is part of the reason why the name Hitler has endured so long as a symbol of evil.

Imagine the world that didn't prosecute at Nuremberg, and didn't track down the war criminals decades later.

[elocs]

3. Yes, see this thread from last night:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8389144

The historical likelihood is that there will be no prosecution of Bush.

[cali]

4. my point is that it's not only this country in which an administration

doesn't prosecute those that preceded it. it's pretty much worldwide.

[sampsonblk]

6. Many war criminals are removed from office, not prosecuted later

That's how the system is supposed to work. Failing that, the USA has a responsibility to do something after the fact.

Right now, John Demanjanuk is on his way to be prosecuted for crimes he allegedly committed over 65 years ago.

How do we extradite him for his crimes when our former president is also a war criminal?

[cali]

7. How does Spain investigate bushco

when they never held themselves accountable for torture and mass murder under Franco?

That's the way the world spins.

[razorman]

8. The reason past leaders are not usually prosecuted is to avoid setting precedents.

No president wants to put a predecessor on trial, because his successor could do the same thing to him later on, especially if he or she is of another party. It doesn't even have to be for a good reason. If something is done once, it WILL happen again. That's the nature of power.

[angstlessk]

9. sorry, it seems prosecution is what seems to keep prosecution from happening

I recall the prosecution of clinton for a peccadillo and the congress was afraid to do anything to boosh because they feared it would look like retribution for impeaching Clinton ...sorry...PROSECUTION SHOULD GO FORWARD...EVEN IF HE IS PARDONED!

[TankLV]

10. good call on all points...sigh...

[Quezacoatl]

11. Watergate and Iran Contra

It may be unlikely that Bush and Cheney will be charged but there were hearings on Watergate and Iran Contra and charges were brought against officials as a result.