Who is opposed to the prosecution of Bush/Cheney administration criminals?

[bobthedrummer]

Seriously, I'm one of many citizens that wants to see these war criminals, profiteers, and domestic enemies of The United States of America indicted, tried and punished if found guilty.

I'd like to hear some reasons not to proceed with prosecution from those opposed to it.

Why not???

[Believing Is Art]

1. *crickets*

If the GOP blames Bush and Cheney for their decline in popularity and losses in '06 and '08, why don't *they* lead the way in prosecutions, or at least refuse to stand in the way?

The only conclusion I can draw is that they are in favor of war crimes.

[pacalo]

2. In determining what went wrong, you must look backward to go forward.

Just heard something along those lines from the editor of "The Nation" on Olbermann.

It's so true. Maybe I'll get to use it someday as my signature line whenever everyone gets the memo that I used to be 8_year_nightmare. ;)

[Pastiche423]

3. There are no reasons

[bobthedrummer]

4. I don't see any posts from anyone opposed to prosecuting either, so far.

Yet recent threads have posters (maybe DLC/New Dem adherents or paid political operatives) that are staunchly against prosecution of these CRIMINALS AND TRAITORS-which certainly isn't the case with citizens in the streets aka we, the people.

[Zywiec]

16. "Yet recent threads have posters that are staunchly against prosecution"

So why not just read those other threads on the exact same topic?

Why start a new thread?

:shrug:

[Pastiche423]

33. You've noticed that too?

It seems to me that there are a lot of new posters here that are just glad that their team guy won. And whatever he says, goes. He doesn't want to prosecute, then neither do they.

Let's all keep repeating history, but most especially the part of history that put us in this crisis. Nixon is a good starting point, dontcha agree?

[underseasurveyor]

5. Opposed?

I don't think so.

[bobthedrummer]

6. They haven't shown up in this thread, yet.

[underseasurveyor]

8. I hope 'they' do

I like comedy:evilgrin:

[bobthedrummer]

9. So do I

O8)

[bridgit]

7. rec 5

[B o d i]

10. Co-conspirators, enablers, or people who benefited from the crimes themselves

and have a guilty conscience? Someone who, seeing the BFEE on trial might feel they themselves, or their worldview anyway, was on trial to some degree?

For example, remember how Alan Dershowitz publicly advocated for torture? I doubt he personally tortured anyone in Gitmo or Abu Graib, but... y'know? It's either weighing on their conscience or there's some cognitive dissonance going on.



I'm not in any way saying those are good reasons, but they may be reasons.

[bobthedrummer]

13. I usually reject the "collective guilt" thing-btw, welcome to DU B o d i

These are individuals, they have names:Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rice, Ashcroft, Addington, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, Myers, Miller, Sanchez, Rove, Doan...

[orleans]

11. ahem...i know a couple people who would oppose

(does knowing those people count?)

[bobthedrummer]

12. I've encountered a few DUers (that's all we're talking about here) of that persuasion too-

they aren't in this thread, yet.

[orleans]

14. well, if you're just talking duers then i'm with you all the way (as usual)

i've been all for going after those assholes and throwing them in prison

it's been on my christmas wish list for years now.

[conscious evolution]

15. I say prosecute

[Laelth]

17. I am not opposed.

I strongly supported impeachment, as the following 2006 journal entry demonstrates:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth/12

I can, however, give you an argument against prosecution. The UK has been peacefully transferring power when administrations change since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. We have been doing it since 1792, if you don't count the 1860 election. Usually, immunity for past mis-deeds is the price we pay to ensure that the evil people holding the reigns of power will voluntarily surrender power after they lose an election without our having to stage a revolution to get the evil ones out of office.

Personally, I had serious doubts about whether Bush would ever voluntarily leave office. I saw the bank bailout package as blackmail to get the Republican Party to honor last year's election results. We paid the ransom, but I also believe immunity was part of the deal.

Is it just? No. But I will say that the peaceful transfer of power is something that should be preserved. I do not want us to become a nation that requires a bloody revolution in order to effect political change.

:dem:

-Laelth

[ColesCountyDem]

18. A good legal argument, and here's another...

Someone once wrote that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact". If that's true (and I personally believe that it is true), then it logically follows that at some point a federal officer or branch of government may or might do something 'extra-constitutional'.

President Lincoln acted in unconstitutional ways at various and sundry times throughout the War Between The States, yet his actions undoubtedly helped to greater or lesser degrees to preserve the Republic. To prosecute President Lincoln (had he lived, of course) or some general or Cabinet member for these actions could have set a legal precedent that would come back to bite a future President in the a** or, at the very least, deny him/her a desperately needed option for dealing with a crisis.

I'm not defending Shrub, per se, because nothing would satisfy the personal pleasure I'd take in seeing him or members of his administration prosecuted, jailed and disgraced than a public trial for a lot of the crap they pulled in the wake of 9/11, but the intellectual 'me' sees the danger in setting such a precedent.

:hi:

[Laelth]

19. Agreed.

There would have been nothing wrong with impeaching the whole lot of them while they were in office. That would have been an entirely different matter. It would not have been a threat to the peaceful transfer of power.

While I can't condone Constitutional violations by any member of the government, impeachment is the proper, Constitutional method for addressing high crimes and misdemeanors committed by people in office.

:toast:

-Laelth

[ColesCountyDem]

20. Agreed, in return. n/t

[DCKit]

26. Laelth, I'm sorry, but "Political Expediency" is a piss poor excuse...

for allowing any administration to walk away after committing treason against the people and the Constitution. Rather, let's prosecute them to the full extent of the law and set an example none would ever wish to follow.

[Laelth]

28. I'd hardly call avoiding a bloody revolution "political expediency."

Revolutions--heads being lopped off with guillotines, etc.--are bad. The peaceful transfer of power is good. If we have to let the scumbags get away with murder in order to insure the peaceful transfer of power, it might just be worth it.

:shrug:

-Laelth

[DCKit]

29. That would make U.S. all "UnAmerican".

I'm not willing to go there and even Jefferson predicted we'd need a bloody revolution every now and then, if only to be reminded of the value of what we're supposed to have here.

Giving a free pass to every unlawful administration that manages to get their hands on the WH - even when they do it with election fraud and judicial collusion - is not the precedent we should be setting. Heads should roll, examples should be made - It's the only way they'll understand that their behavior will not, ever, be tolerated.

[Laelth]

31. I hear you, and I admit to being very torn on this subject.

I was a strong supporter of impeachment while * was in office. I am simply pointing out that there is a good argument for not prosecuting now.

Thanks for the response.

:dem:

-Laelth

[mmonk]

21. In the end, its not up to us, the citizen. We are powerless in such matters.

There may be some lame attempt at window dressing by the party leadership.

[lpbk2713]

22. A simple tarring & feathering would work for me.

Of course they should stand trial and be held accountable for selling out their country.

[HamdenRice]

23. OK, I'll bite. I'm opposed to prosecution of Bush/Cheney administration officials

as the first step.

OK, now that I've got your attention.

I hope that they are all prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison. But I don't think that Justice Department prosecution of many of the crimes should be the first step.

That's because DoJ investigations are supposed to be confidential. They are confusing to the public, which generally just hears that a person was indicted, then hears dribs and drabs of revelations, only sees "sketch artist" renderings of the perps and court proceedings, then hears that the person was convicted.

Also, the rules of evidence in court proceedings -- the only part that the public will hear about -- are extremely restrictive. For example, no hearsay evidence is allowed. The prosecutor basically can only ask questions and not make statements. Court cases rarely paint the "big picture" of the machine of corruption that the individual defendant is part of.

Most importantly, the right wing has polluted the public consciousness about prosecution with bromides about the Obama administration being closet Marxists who want to launch "show trials."

I think the first step is Congressional hearings. It was Congressional hearings that brought down Nixon for Watergate. It was Congressional hearings that exposed the Iran-Contra scandal. It was the Church Committee Congressional hearings that exposed the CIA abuses of the 60s and 1970s.

Congressional hearings are televised, and when the scandal is really big, much of the national becomes glued to the television. Individual congressmen and congresswomen are allowed "connect the dots" for the public while grilling the perps and paint the big picture while explaining to the American public what the signifigance of each bit of revealed evidence is.

Congressional hearings will help Democrats (and any Republicans who oppose corruption) sketch for the public the big picture of an out of control, lawless administration -- one that used the NSA to spy on the public, the press and its own officials; that turned a blind eye to the evolving 9/11 plot; that planned the Iraq war from day one; that used the attacks to launch a war of global domination based on lies; that pulled back US forces at Tora Bora in order to let bin Laden "slip away"; that exploded defense spending through do-nothing contractors and sub-contractors whose only purpose was the kickback funds to the Republicans; that "lost" billions in Iraq, including "bricks" of cash; that awarded billions in no-bid contracts to Cheney's company and billions in defense spending to Poppy's company; that kidnapped, tortured and killed people; that stole elections through electronic vote rigging; and that rigged the media to look the other way.

As during Watergate and Iran-Contra, hearings will get the public so angry that they will demand prosecutions -- or flood the street with pikes and pitchforks. Hearings would make it seem like we, the public "made" the Obama administration go after the bad guys.

Lastly, the hearings will accumulate massive amounts of documents, testimony and narrative that they can wrap up with a ribbon and leave on the doorstep of the Justice Department.

[smiley]

24. I am one who is totally for the prosecution, however...

I had a drunken conversation this past weekend with a stranger at a bar. He was a lawyer and claimed to be a liberal. He seemed to be opposed to it because he felt there were no legal groundings for crimes committed. Some of my examples of why we should prosecute revolved around illegal wiretapping and torture. His response was essentially that the Patriot Act made it those things legal and thereby arguable in court that no crimes were committed. However this lawyer seems to forget that the constitution should trump the Patriotic Act.

I should add this this lawyer was not a fan of the previous administration, he simply felt it was a lost cause to pursue.

[B o d i]

25. bump nt

[Individualist]

27. DLCers and neolibs

[Initech]

30. If you ever want to keep these fuckers from getting power again, we must prosecute!

That should be the end of the argument right there. We cannot afford to have Jeb, or Palin, or Rush, any neocons getting in power again. It would be a huge disaster.

[Radical Activist]

32. Obama is not opposed.

He said so at the press conference.