why isnt the Obama Admin charging Bush with the war crimes he committed?

[ORDagnabbit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8118807/George-W-Bush-waterboarding-saved-British-lives.html

Three people were waterboarded and I believe that decision saved lives,” said Mr Bush, who denied that the practice amounted to torture. When asked if he authorised of waterboarding to gain information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the captured al-Qaeda leader, he responded: “Damn right!”


The British government has long viewed waterboarding as torture.

[Angry Dragon]

1. That is the $700 trillion question

[SugarShack]

29. Obama said he did not want to procecute crimes of the past, he wanted to move forward...but

we don't procecute crimes in the future, they have not been committed. It was a line to make you feel good about moving forward, while not holding Bush accountable.

[Angry Dragon]

32. My position is

that if you do not apply the law you then condone it.
If you do not prosecute crimes then you are telling the
people in this country that torture is okay, theft is okay,
murder is okay, etc, and then they wonder why people are
becoming more lawless.

If one does not take care of the garbage from the past
you are going to repeat the garbage. I equate it with an
abused woman. Until she breaks the cycle and understands
why she keeps going back to the abuser she will keep going
back. Only then, and only then, will the garbage drop by the wayside
and then can go forward.

[DailyGrind51]

56. "What you fail to carry back, you bring forward" John Bradshaw

American is still committing war crimes!

[some guy]

2. Because they would be liable for their own crimes.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a war crime. Torture is a subset of the larger crime.

If the US admitted that, the Obama admin would be complicit for continuing the occupation after the Bush admin left office.

I think the members of the House & Senate who authorized funding to allow the occupation to continue should also be held as complicit.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[Chulanowa]

3. Why didn't the Bush administration prosecute Clinton?

Why didn't Clinton prosecute Bush?
Why didn't Bush prosecute Reagan?
Why didn't Reag... Okay, clean slate there, Carter managed to avoid this pitfall.
Nixon didn't go after Johnson.
Nor did Johnson or Kennedy go after Eisenhower.

If you think it's just the Bush administration that has committed war crimes, you don't follow much on American history. And just like cops, we're never gonna see one bring charges against the others.

It's sick and perverse, but it's a guarantee that it will never change - The only times when the US (probably any nation, in fact) has not comitted war crimes, is when the nation is not at war.

[some guy]

4. I'm not too sure about Carter.

Mostly, I agree with your post. It's generally acknowledged now that Brzezinski, under Carter initiated CIA funding in Afghanistan to "give the Soviet Union their own VietNam."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski#Afghanistan

Brzezinski, known for his hardline policies on the Soviet Union, initiated in 1979 a campaign supporting mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which were run by Pakistani security services with financial support from the CIA and Britain's MI6. Part of the CIA program was led by their elite Special Activities Division and included the arming, training and leading of Afghanistan's mujahideen.<27> This policy had the explicit aim of promoting radical Islamist and anti-Communist forces to overthrow the secular communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan government in Afghanistan, which had been destabilized by coup attempts against Hafizullah Amin, the power struggle within the Soviet-supported Parcham faction of the PDPA and a subsequent Soviet military intervention.

[Chulanowa]

7. Oh, duh

Vast brain fart on my part; especially given that i've regularly harped on Carter for that mess.

[The Uncola]

19. So...

.. your basic excuse for giving people clearly guilty of Crimes Against Humanity a free pass, is that somebody else in the past, didn't pursue charges against someone else?

Really?

And you are ok with that? So exactly when did any person in this Nation become Above the Law?

:puke:

[some guy]

30. " It's sick and perverse . . ."

so, no I don't think Chunalowa is saying it's okay. Just that it is a fact, and extends back in time further than just Bush II.

You ask, " . . . when did any person in this Nation become Above the Law? "

I'd guess late 18th century, certainly by the early 19th.

1803 "we" stole a huge tract of land from the people who were living on it, and called it okay by paying France $15 million. A lot of people died on the "Trail of Tears", so I think that ought to qualify as a crime against humanity.

[The Uncola]

31. At what point do...

.. we act as decent human beings should then?

Never?

That may be acceptable to some, it isn't to me and there is nothing you can say, no excuse you can make, no name I can be called, no insult to my intelligence, that will ever convince me that allowing these crimes to go unpunished, is anything but morally bankrupt, AND those that refuse TO DO THE RIGHT THING are thereby making themselves complicit in those crimes.

[some guy]

33. I disagree with nothing you wrote.

Now what?

People have tried to arrest Karl Rove, and got arrested themselves instead.

Someone threw shoes at Bush II and got imprisoned.

It's relatively easy to say we have to do something, it's more difficult to actually accomplish that something.

" If I had a rocket launcher . . ." - but I don't.



PS I'm not sure of the degree of my complicity, but I do acknowledge as a US citizen who is not spending all my time trying to bring these criminals to justice I do have some degree of complicity.

[The Uncola]

46. The complicty is on the part of those..

.. who were in a position to do something but didn't. I think it's fairly obvious who that is.

[Chulanowa]

50. The entire government structure

And not just in our nation.

But who knows; maybe someday we'll be able to follow the example that Latin America is setting with regard to hunting down and prosecuting war criminals.

[The Uncola]

52. In that..

.. we are one. If our supposed "leaders" aren't up to the task, perhaps that someday is now.

[Chulanowa]

53. Yeah, so what's the plan there?

You gonna body-check Cheney or something?

So long as our nation clings to the notion of American Exceptionalism, this will continue; these crimes are protected because each administration thinks that they may someday need the leeway to commit those crimes themselves, as a part of serving the "greater good" of keeping America on top. I have a notion that even if we were to get a government made of nothing but Sanders and Kucinich clones, nationalist pragmatism would win out over moral idealism.

We're not going to see prosecutions for this stuff until America finally realizes where it truly stands - as a nation of equals among equals, rather than a nation of kings among peons. So long as out government feels there is a need for fig leaves, there will be fig leaves.

[The Uncola]

54. What I will or won't do..

... isn't a subject open for discussion on the web.

[Chulanowa]

55. Well, I would suggest against body-checking Cheney

I hear the undead have super-strength.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. So have we

That is until bush

We used to hang people for that!

[Lurks Often]

25. No we haven't

Whether it was the fire bombings of German or Japanese cities or the machine gunning of Japanese merchant marine sailors in their lifeboats after there ship was sunk (google Mush Morton) or the killing of prisoners in WWII, they weren't prosecuted.

FDR had the US Navy in an undeclared shooting war with Germany six months before Pearl Harbor and we were actively helping England long before that, which was a major violation of the neutrality we declared. It is easy to look back with the 50+ years of hindsight and say FDR did the right thing (which he did), but Democrat or not, under similar circumstances today a large part of DU will be calling for his impeachment.

On edit: US Presidents have always been, to a large degree, above the law when acting in their role of President. It is up to Congress to determine if the President has broken the law and Congress is unwilling to open that can of worms because senior Congressional leadership on both sides went along and continue to go along with the 2 wars.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Philippines we did.

US troops died for that. Not WWIi you silli, 1898.

And we hung Japanese for doing it.

As to the crimes of total war, sadly you place a base in a city, like San Diego...it is a valid target and smart bombs didn't exist...

[Lurks Often]

48. You went farther back then I did

And certainly manufacturing, a military base or formations or something else that supports the war effort is a valid target.

However firebombing a city with the intent to terrorize and kill the general population (Dresden, Coventry among others) should have been unacceptable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Not arguing but neither side respected it

Doenitz walked because Nimitz told the court he did the same shit. (Total sub warfare)

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Philippines we did.

US troops died for that. Not WWIi you silli, 1898.

And we hung Japanese for doing it.

As to the crimes of total war, sadly you place a base in a city, like San Diego...it is a valid target and smart bombs didn't exist...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

44. The Corporate Media loves Bush. Always have. Lauer looked as if he wanted to perform

oral sex on him last night. They would never allow Obama to get away with pursuing war crimes.

Obama will be impeached before Rove, Cheney, Bush et al. will ever be brought to justice.

[Webster Green]

6. Same old shit.

Big shots rarely ever face justice for their crimes.

Tom Delay is on the TeeVee spouting repuke talking points, instead of behind bars where he belongs.

[Scuba]

11. Bingo. Money talks....

...should a 23 year-old black man get busted for a second cocaine possession and he's looking at 30 years. Paris Hilton gets fines $4,000. Hope she can come up with the money. Maybe skip getting her nails done this week.

[Stuart G]

21. Agreed nt

[Skittles]

8. accountability ain't Obama's thing

we need to, you know, "look forward"

[Karmadillo]

10. Except for teachers. War criminals, on the other hand, can skate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/10/obama-calls-accountability-education/

Obama wants teacher 'accountability'

President Obama on Tuesday put the nation's teachers on notice that their performance will be tracked and good teachers will be rewarded, while bad teachers will be tossed out of the classroom.

Calling for a "new culture of accountability" in schools, Mr. Obama proposed building on rather than replacing the No Child Left Behind education law signed by President Bush. But Mr. Obama said it's time to put more money, better tracking of teachers' performance, higher standards and real accountability behind the law.

[Skittles]

59. touche

gotta hold them TEACHERS accountable :thumbsdown:

[Skittles]

60. touche

[treestar]

9. Have you ever been involved in a legal proceeding?

I think not.

Yeah, let's let the economy fall apart and spend time on such a thing.

They'd defend themselves and it would drive you nuts anyway.

[JonLP24]

13. It helps when the suspect confesses

As Bush did in regards to waterboarding.

[treestar]

27. And a team of lawyers

is off for a billion hours of billable time and law clerks with plenty of time to research the many legal issues regarding confessions, the Fifth Amendment, Executive Privilege (that'll be fun because there are not going to be a lot of precedent setting cases on it).

Lawyer Bonanza. I guess it will improve that sector of the economy. We could call it a stimulus package for lawyers.

And of course the taxpayers would get to fund the government's side of it.

That MIGHT sell it to the voters. :rofl: A benefit to lawyers, one of the most hated groups in the country!

[frylock]

43. so, if i follow you correctly, you think bush should skate because it would be too expensive..

to prosecute him?

[treestar]

47. No, you're not following the conversation

Everyone here thinks it's simple. Bush confessed, end of story. That shows no experience in courtrooms. As I said, it would mostly benefit lawyers who will argue about the legal issues, admissibility, etc. for years. Bush is rich and has lawyers. No doubt he thinks he is safe in what he said. Executive privilege, evidentiary issues, it goes on and on. My point is that it is not so simple as "Bush confessed."

[countrydad58]

39. You mean it

hasn't fallen apart already? Last time I looked we are teetering on the edge of the cliff & Obama wants to encourage more outsourcing of our jobs!

[de novo]

62. Might as well not even try.

Your deference to authority, corruption and power speaks volumes.

[tavalon]

12. I think this needs to be prosecuted internationally

I know it's scary to go up against the biggest bully in the world, but the world knows and they know we won't do what's right so they need to. They are international war crimes.

[Lurks Often]

28. Never happen

NO US President will EVER allow a predecessor to be tried internationally, because then the current President can also be tried.

And if you think there aren't countries out there that wouldn't like to see Obama tried, you're naive. (Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea)

[hack89]

61. The ICC does not have jurisdiction. nt

[DonCoquixote]

14. Let me ask this

Do you think the American people have the will to see Bush prosecuted? Answer, no.

[The Uncola]

49. Thanks for answering for everyone n the Nation.

Presume much?


:eyes:

[City Lights]

15. He wants to look forward. nt

[Mist]

16. As Gore Vidal has said: "America has one political party--the Democratic "party" is

the slightly more liberal arm of the party."

[live love laugh]

17. Stop expecting Obama to do everything when Bush did jackshit. nt

[Bandit]

18. The US Government does not consider water boarding illegal..

Obama was very careful in what he said about torture. He said torture was illegal and the USA does not do it, but he nor anyone in his Administration ever said water boarding was illegal. If he were to admit to such a thing he would be forced into pursuing prosecution.
Water Boarding was specifically singled out and defended as legal by Bush*'s legal council and their decisions have not been overturned..They have been mocked and derided as bad opinion but so far no one has gone so far as to declare water boarding illegal.. Granted it was always considered illegal before Bush* and in fact numerous people have been prosecuted for it, but Bush* changed all that and it has not been classified as illegal yet..

[raccoon]

20. Reckon it's because Obama might want a favor from the Repubs one day? nt

[Gaedel]

24. Neither party.......

wants to establish a tradition of criminal indictments of the other party every time the White House changes hands.

[Javaman]

22. Life in the new reality...

The rich don't have to answer for their crimes.

Need I say more?

[MadBadger]

23. Its Politics

[Solly Mack]

26. Holder called waterboarding torture...and torture is illegal...ergo

Holder said waterboarding is a form of torture - and torture is illegal.

At his hearing, January 2009

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28672011/



and again in March 2009

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5213OE20090302



LEAHY: Thank you, Mr. Holder. We'll have the first round of ten-minute questions.

Water boarding has been recognized to be torture since the time of Spanish Inquisition. The United States has prosecuted American soldiers for using this technique. Earlier in the last century, they prosecuted Japanese soldiers for using it on Americans in World War II. But the two most recent nominees to serve as attorney general of the United States hedged on the question of water boarding.

They would not say that if an American were water boarded by some other government or terrorist anywhere in the world, whether it would be torture and illegal. They maintained it would depend upon the circumstances.

Do you agree with me that water boarding is torture and illegal?

HOLDER: If you look at the history of the use of that technique used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crimes. We prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam.

I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, water boarding is torture.

LEAHY: Do you believe that other world leaders would have the authority to authorize the torture of United States citizens if they deemed it necessary for their national security?

HOLDER: No, they would not. It would violate the international obligations that, I think, all civilized nations have agreed to at the Geneva Conventions.

LEAHY: Do you believe that the president of the United States has authority to exercise a commander-in-chief override and immunize acts of torture? I ask that because we did not get a satisfactory answer from Former Attorney General Gonzales on that.

HOLDER: Mr. Chairman, no one is above the law. The president has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. There are obligations that we have as a result of treaties that we have signed -- obligations, obviously, in the Constitution. Where Congress has passed a law, it is the obligation of the president, or the commander-in-chief, to follow those laws.




Alas...... America would rather protect war criminals.

[TBF]

34. Because democrats are complicit in the war mongering. nt

[Urban Prairie]

35. " Three people were waterboarded and I believe that decision saved lives"

I have a very difficult time believing in that small of a number, more like x10 or maybe many more, plus it is like a drunk driver getting caught driving drunk. He or she was caught once out of the likely hundreds of times that they weren't. Waterboarding was not the worst form of torture that was used during the Bush regime, either, IMO. It was just the worst type of torture that they officially admitted that they were doing.

I had no idea that they were waterboarding terrorists not just several times, but 80-100+, because Bush said that they would not give in until they were subjected to waterboarding a ridiculous amount of times, due to their code of honor and religious "beliefs", that was something that I was not aware of.

[countrydad58]

36. Because Now

they are complicit too.

[Individualist]

37. DLC/NDC doesn't oppose neocons; they enable them.

[NuclearDem]

38. What #2 said

As soon as you prosecute a previous administration, the next will prosecute you.

Of course, the solution to this conundrum is DON'T DO EVIL SHIT THAT COULD GET YOU IN TROUBLE, but lol that's too much to expect.

[Fumesucker]

42. Too busy persecuting medical marijuana patients...

After all, we must have priorities.

[grahamhgreen]

45. If they don't prosecute, they too are guilty.

[Senator]

58. K&+R

[TheKentuckian]

63. What is the other option for beliefs?

Waterboarding is torture and anyone who says otherwise should be subjected to it along with any minor children as they watch.

Yeah, I'll go there with it. Don't like ugly then stop subscribing to it.

[grahamhgreen]

64. Yes it's a serious crime. Prosecutions are

Manated under our treaty obligations.

It is a violation of binding international treaty law in this case, because this is an international law convention (UN convention on torture) — and it provides unequivocally that states are not merely obligated to make torture a crime, but also to prosecute any incidents of which credible evidence can be found.

[felix_numinous]

57. Every administration that allowed past crimes to go unpunished

contributed to the increase in corruption.

Unfortunately the tradition of "pardoning' the previous administration, has enabled rogue groups to systematically infiltrate all through places of power, as time goes on they incrementally gain more influence--their consolidation of wealth has grown exponentially.

It has to stop somewhere.