Why is Obama avoiding the prosecution of Bush/Cheney & Co.?

[Cyrano]

I’ve been wondering about this since the day Obama took office. Bush, Cheney and their henchmen spent eight years shredding the Constitution, and ignoring American and international laws.

Their crimes against Americans are bad enough. But the larger issue here is war crimes and, (a phrase from Nuremberg), crimes against humanity.

Is Obama fearful that by prosecuting these people that he may, if/when the Republicans are once again in power, that he may be held responsible for some trumped up “crimes?”

I really need someone to explain to me why Obama is ignoring some of the most horrendous crimes ever committed by an American presidential administration.

[warrior1]

1. Because

He could end up like JFK?

[Submariner]

7. And if president Obama did go after the Bush/Cheney junta,

I do not doubt the rethugs would try and harm Obama's children or wife to save face for these world class losers.

I did not think the rethugs would so much racism in 2008, so obviously not enough have died off from the KKK gene pool yet to lower the threat to an African American president. And I would not be surprised if the Obama family is a bit stunned by the overt racism as well, which may be why he has had to back off from sending them to the Hague where Bushco belongs.

[librechik]

34. He tries to draw a contrast between the obscene presidential power grab of the Bushies

and his own more humble approach. My response: Classy, but not the right time. Now is the time to make a firm statement that The USA will not allow nonsense like pre-emptive strikes and torture as a nation, and if we do those criminals are swiftly punished. He really made a bad judgment call, IMO. But maybe, as some have already pointed out, certain murderous parties within his government will not allow him to change the "Justice department" back to a JUSTICE department.

[blm]

2. I think because so many of the best known Dems are involved, too, going back to Reagan and Bush1 era

and continuing through the 90s.

[Orsino]

12. +1

Democratic complicity takes prosecution off the table, even as it did impeachment.

[blm]

15. Britain's inquiry into Iraq War should be making it obvious - Clinton was bringing Blair along in

BEFORE Bush took office. 9-11 just provided them all the cover they wanted.

[dipsydoodle]

3. Fair question

Maybe he's just sitting tight in the knowledge it will happpen without his input. :shrug:

One can but hope.

[babylonsister]

4. Because he had a country to try to save from going down

the sewer?

I also wish something would be done about the previous admin. Maybe he had too much on his plate this past year. Plus, any trial would suck all the oxygen out of everything else happening.

I'm waiting for Dawn Johnsen to be confirmed, and hopeful she might get the ball rolling, which is/was the rethugs' biggest nightmare and why they've stalled her for so long.

[old mark]

8. I agree. The right already thinks Obama is a marxist puppet of some unnamed

foreign international movement planning to take over the US and destroy democracy and christianity (as only WE have it) and take all the guns and make everyone socialists. Despite people serously believing this bullshit, he must succeed in cleaning up bush's trash and saving the remains of this ungrateful, idiotic country while people are threatening to shoot him.

If he even hinted that he wanted to prosecute the Bush gang, there would be open rebellion by the imbecilic right, and, worse, nothing would get done to actually rescue the country.

I think that if any future legal action comes against the bush war criminals, it would not come from the WH.

mark

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Leonardo DaVinci said:

He who refuses to punish evil commands it to occur. That would be DaVinci. But you do not agree, you think we can selectively enforce the law and remain a nation of laws.
Personally, I go with DaVinci, not with Rick Warren 101.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomWV]

6. Because denigration of some Government is condemnation of all Government

The mantra of the Right is that Government is a failed institution and prosecution of the previous Administration will just add to the misguided thinking that Government is fundamentally corrupt.

It is an irrational fear, but its the only one I can come up with.

[RainDog]

9. because the Bush administration has stay behinds keeping them protected

it's just too bad one of Cheney's special... nevermind. I can't say it but I can surely think it since justice isn't blind in the U.S. It was waterboarded.

[customerserviceguy]

10. It wouldn't be politically popular

with anyone in the mushy middle, who merely wants the President to expend his political capital on getting the economy back in gear.

I don't recall Barack Obama campaigning on the issue of turning Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld over to the Hague, I do recall him stumping for moving forward and getting people back to work.

[madokie]

11. In the political climate we have today

if he was to do what we all would like to see it would be all that gets done and we have a lot of undoing to do. I accept that he has his hands tied and is doing the best he can. Ultimately they will be brought to justice. You just don't go around killing no telling how many and outright bombing two countries back to the stone age for a lie and get by with it. Right now we have bigger fish to fry and the man simply sees that and in my view has his priorities right.

[lunatica]

14. American history is largely a horrendous crime spree. This is not new

Remember the Native Americans? Have you read anything about the economic shock and awe war that the US consistently wages on Central and South America? Can you name a single justified war we've had since WW II? I could go on but you probably know all these things already.

[RainDog]

19. exactly. and in this case, justice will only come via International law

if it comes at all.

Chile had a long reconciliation with its past murders of citizens, etc. under that Republican favorite, Pinochet. They published documents and forced people to face the truth.

I don't think Americans have the guts to face the truth about themselves.

[atreides1]

22. America

The Portrait of Dorian Grey.

[Echo In Light]

21. Re 9/11, G.Carlin said: "they don't investigate themselves in this country."

k/r

[Thothmes]

38. Do not forget Vietnam

[Mari333]

16. There is NO justification for it at ALL

By not investigating or prosecuting it sets a HUGE precedent for War crimes to CONTINUE under the Obama admin and future admin's

It legitimizes the war crimes of the past AND the ones continuing NOW


Same old shit. Good old boys club.

Dems re arrange the deck chairs and the Boat sinks slowly

Republicans just let the boat sink.


either way, we all drown.

[PRETZEL]

18. For as much as I agree,

the precedent of criminally charging them would also set a huge precedent.

I hate to say it, but it's a no win situation.

[Mari333]

20. I>E> Obama admin will always be considered chickenshits

so far they are staying right there in the mushy middle and over 5000 soldiers died and 100,000''s of thousands of Iraqis died and no one will be held accountable

God, we really ARE fucking NAZIS

[PRETZEL]

25. No one will be held accountable,

at least not in a criminal sense.

It's the court of public opinion where any debate will occur.

[Mari333]

26. its another reason the dems will lose seats

spineless.

[Ian David]

17. There's no money in it, so Congress won't do it. n/t

[Powerdot16]

23. Because

any investigation would also implicate some prominent Dems in war crimes.

[rusty fender]

24. Obama is committing his own war crimes, i.e.,

the civilian killings in Afghanistan. If his admin goes after Bush/Cheney, then Romney/Palin will go after Obama. Obama is also just another politician, not a leader or man of principle. Afterall, he is as big an enable of the MIC as any of our previous Presidents.

[Johonny]

27. Why isn't England sending Tony Blair to jail?

There just isn't the mass international pressure to do this. Without that it's simply horrifically messy in terms of internal politics to prosecute such people and countries often take the low ball way out. This country for sure, see Nixon and Iran Contra. The US has an amazing ability to ignore prosecuting executive power abuse.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. I think that, ideally, he wants to (as do many Democrats privately)

However, my theory as to why nothing is happening is that I think that there are just too many other pressing issues (not to mention corporate mediawhore distractions) going on to be able to invest the necessary time, energy, and political capital into such an effort.

Even though I personally believe that Bush, CHENEY, Rove, et. al are guily as sin of all kinds of illegality and criminal activity, I don't see President Obama and his administration going after them as practical and/or likely for the foreseeable future.
If the Obama administration were to go after them, I couldn't see anything significant happening until his (probable) second term in office and only then if things have improved significantly in terms of the economy and/or there is a HUGE public groundswell of support for such an effort (which, though it clearly exists among us does not appear to exist generally).
Vincent Buliogisi laid out a pretty reasonable case (and path) for prosecuting George W. Bush and at least some of his minions for murder (Iraq) but, again, while it's certainly technically possible, there are tons of political/practical realities that have to be taken into account before such an effort could proceed. I would also argue that Congress and/or SCOTUS has made lots of the Bush/Cheney wrongdoing "legal" and/or provided retroactive immunity for a lot of it, so that would probably make prosecution now even harder.

As to your question about Obama worrying about the Republicans might do to him if they regain power (i.e. Congress), I would say that there is not a single doubt in my mind (nor in his) that they would go after him with every bit of ferocity (and perhaps even more) that they went after Clinton and attempt to "kneecap" his administration with endless investigations on a bunch of "trumped-up" charges and accusations.

[Cyrano]

29. Here's what's really depressing about this whole issue.

Presidents and their henchmen are allowed to commit murder with no penalties attached.

The rest of us mere mortals could spend up to 15 years in jail for the crime of manslaughter 2.

So the only conclusion to draw from this is that who you kill doesn't matter. Who you are is what counts.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. I agree with you. It IS depressing

That is probably why so many politicians are/get so arrogant- that that they can get away with things that most of us would rot in jail for the rest of our lives for. If only we had a society where the elite/powerful were held to the same standards as the rest of us "mere mortals"............................

[Individualist]

31. DLC/NDC doesn't hold neocons accountable; they enable them.

[seaglass]

32. Lack of moral courage. Not unlike most if not all of our political figures. n/t

[Solly Mack]

33. Just wait...another Bush/Cheney-league executive will come along

and some idiots will ask "How did this happen?"

Well, not prosecuting corrupt and criminal government officials tends to either lend legitimacy to their crimes or allows the guilty to deny that crimes were committed - since, golly, if crimes were committed then America, where no one is above the law and the rule of law means something, would surely have prosecuted/impeached Bush/Cheney Inc...

...and all of that makes it easier for them - or others of their ilk - to return to power.

People say things like "history won't treat them kindly" like that really means something...like that will stop anything....like that will somehow prevent another Bush/Cheney type from gaining office again.


I need to stop...my disdain is overflowing...

[Independent_Liberal]

35. Which is why people need to take this seriously.

My sentiments exactly, SollyMack. I'm doing all I can to make people understand it. I always exercise a healthy amount of hope and positivity, but I also must point out folks the dangers that do exist and provide them with what paths to take to avoid such nightmare scenarios.

[Solly Mack]

39. They really need to - because a future wanna-be tyrant now knows exactly

what they can get away with and will push for even more power, resulting in even graver breaches of law and abuses of power.

[Jack Sprat]

36. It would require an American president

with strong, moral fiber and a conviction to pursue justice. That's not Obama and applies to very few in our political arena.

[Libertas1776]

37. Probably cuz he is engaging

in and continuing their legacy. Can't prosecute someone for things you too are now doing. *sigh* The Audacity of Dope :eyes: