Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:19 AM Jun 2014

Why aren't Bush and Cheney in prison?



Quick Brief for the prosecution:

They ignored warnings Bin Laden was determined to strike in the United States.

They lied the United States into War on a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11.

They used their government positions to enrich their cronies.

They turned the nation's spy agencies upon the American people, contrary to law.

They railroaded a Democratic governor into prison on trumped-up charges.

There are more, but that's a start. And I still would like to know why they aren't in prison.

So, why are these two free?
106 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why aren't Bush and Cheney in prison? (Original Post) Octafish Jun 2014 OP
They still have money and still (not coincidentally) have powerful friends. lpbk2713 Jun 2014 #1
The wealthy don't usually buy justice, but instead pay to deprive others of justice. Dark n Stormy Knight Jun 2014 #12
Absolutely. They're so powerful they got Newsweak to print a retraction 23 years after the fact. Octafish Jun 2014 #13
Newsweak - ha ha!!! LeftInTX Jun 2014 #58
CIA whistleblower John Stockwell on the implications of the presidency of George H.W. Bush... Octafish Jun 2014 #66
Perfect. raven mad Jun 2014 #101
Because they are rich, and were propped up by their rich peers. n/t Orsino Jun 2014 #2
Rothschilds are so Old Money they're maybe the Oldest, apart from those stone money in Yap... Octafish Jun 2014 #15
Because they're above the law or "too big to fail," take your pick. Uncle Joe Jun 2014 #3
Funny, that ''too big to fail'' thing. Octafish Jun 2014 #16
+1 btrflykng9 Jun 2014 #49
Come on, you of ALL people know the answer to that! The_Commonist Jun 2014 #4
Sorry, The_Commonist. I do sound like a maddeningly scratched record... Octafish Jun 2014 #28
Speaking of scratched records... The_Commonist Jun 2014 #52
It's time to move forward, Octafish deutsey Jun 2014 #5
And that's the real reason. pa28 Jun 2014 #57
''No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon...the (WTC)...'' Octafish Jun 2014 #60
And Off The Record!! johnnyreb Jun 2014 #89
"United States v. George W. Bush et al." by Elizabeth De La Vega, a former federal prosecutor. canoeist52 Jun 2014 #6
Ms. Elizabeth De La Vega has INTEGRITY. Octafish Jun 2014 #61
Because the Democratic Party Leadership is no longer interested in prosecution of war criminals Exposethefrauds Jun 2014 #7
Nuremberg II Octafish Jun 2014 #67
If it weren't for the nazis we would not have the modern police state or military we have today! Exposethefrauds Jun 2014 #105
don't forget they made TORTURE an american institution spanone Jun 2014 #8
Just in case the president needs to crush the testicles of a child. Octafish Jun 2014 #69
If you have the time..."Elizabeth de la Vega - Making a Case For Impeachment " canoeist52 Jun 2014 #9
Thanks for the link. nt OnyxCollie Jun 2014 #37
Please can you post this as a main op? Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2014 #47
Thank you, canoeist52! Octafish Jun 2014 #70
good lawyers? corkhead Jun 2014 #10
The bad ones they kept on the Federal payroll. Octafish Jun 2014 #83
If they travel to certain countries, they will be adigal Jun 2014 #11
What countries are those? former9thward Jun 2014 #17
I have to look it up, but I think Italy and Germany?? adigal Jun 2014 #19
Cheney cancelled a trip to Canada last year, and Bush to Switzerland adigal Jun 2014 #23
None to all of those. former9thward Jun 2014 #50
we all wait to see kamylle Jun 2014 #18
Pinochet got pinched in Pommyland Octafish Jun 2014 #96
Is it against the law to lead us into war on false pretenses? randome Jun 2014 #14
You sound disappointed that it is indeed against the law, why? Dragonfli Jun 2014 #29
You're so funny. randome Jun 2014 #34
Laugh at me all you want, but the rule of law is extremely important Dragonfli Jun 2014 #36
Because too many Democrats collaborated with them. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #20
Bingo n/t MissDeeds Jun 2014 #38
We have a winner. 840high Jun 2014 #79
The money is that good. Octafish Jun 2014 #98
Why you ask ??? SamKnause Jun 2014 #21
+1 million Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #90
This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Jun 2014 #22
I believe you are correct, Corruption Inc. Octafish Jun 2014 #106
Nancy Pelosi. Barack Obama. FiveGoodMen Jun 2014 #24
what about the next administration? Takket Jun 2014 #25
$$$ Scarsdale Jun 2014 #26
We no longer believe in the rule of law in this country Dragonfli Jun 2014 #27
that's a good fucking question! wildbilln864 Jun 2014 #30
Because the Obama administration iamthebandfanman Jun 2014 #31
There's still time Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2014 #72
ALL OF THEM! Scalded Nun Jun 2014 #32
Some guy keeps posting "Money trumps peace". Sums it up better than I could. nt raouldukelives Jun 2014 #33
Prison Is More Than They Deserve supercats Jun 2014 #35
Here's my question: What punishment is appropriate for those who are protecting them? FiveGoodMen Jun 2014 #40
Who is protecting them? Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2014 #77
Isn't everyone who hasn't -- and continues not to -- even try to investigate and prosecute FiveGoodMen Jun 2014 #82
I don't think ignoring warnings is a crime. I would have led with TORTURE. tclambert Jun 2014 #39
Being asleep at the wheel re 9/11 led to deaths of thousands of people Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2014 #45
Post removed Post removed Jun 2014 #41
You A Special Little Snowflake, Fella, Ain'tcha? The Magistrate Jun 2014 #44
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2014 #46
This message was self-deleted by its author William769 Jun 2014 #48
the top of the Democratic Party works for the same boss--and it aint us. yurbud Jun 2014 #42
Many years ago it used to be us. 840high Jun 2014 #81
They have already been convicted in Kuala Lumpur albino65 Jun 2014 #43
Not by the Malaysian government though.. EX500rider Jun 2014 #87
Same reason Nixon didnt go to prison, or Reagan, both having committed treason to get elected randys1 Jun 2014 #51
We had to look forward obxhead Jun 2014 #53
Because there is no justice G_j Jun 2014 #54
because we were told we had to LOOK FORWARD Skittles Jun 2014 #55
Look what is on the horizon - it is not very nice Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2014 #75
Because powerfull people can always buy prosecutors..... mylye2222 Jun 2014 #56
Instead of prison, just put Bush, Cheney and the gang on a plane to Iraq and dump them on the aint_no_life_nowhere Jun 2014 #59
That would make a great reality tee vee series. Octafish Jun 2014 #62
My question exactly. nt duhneece Jun 2014 #63
That whole damn administration should be behind bars! Initech Jun 2014 #64
It is a grave injustice—that they are free. Enthusiast Jun 2014 #65
yeah, why! napkinz Jun 2014 #68
It's the age old formula, Octafish... MrMickeysMom Jun 2014 #71
We need to be a bit different from the norm Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2014 #76
At this point in desperation, I'll take excrement pelting... MrMickeysMom Jun 2014 #80
Because the justice system in this country favors the elite. antiGOPin294 Jun 2014 #73
This message was self-deleted by its author antiGOPin294 Jun 2014 #74
Far be it from me to ruin a good Bush bashing Calista241 Jun 2014 #78
No, it is not that simple for Bush, nor Cheney and Blair. Jefferson23 Jun 2014 #88
That's not evidence Calista241 Jun 2014 #91
That is ridiculous, there are those who presided over the Nuremberg trials and have weighed in Jefferson23 Jun 2014 #93
because this question needs to be asked regularly. NuttyFluffers Jun 2014 #84
Because neither one has been convicted of anything. WillowTree Jun 2014 #85
Ask Pelosi, not us rustydog Jun 2014 #86
From inside a lonely prison cell ... Martin Eden Jun 2014 #92
Wow, did you really write that? Kudos. n/t Jefferson23 Jun 2014 #95
Yes, I wrote it when Bush left office. Martin Eden Jun 2014 #97
Understandable..blunt and coarse is on point and should not always be avoided. n/t Jefferson23 Jun 2014 #99
Because we don't have a real opposition party?? sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #94
Because B613 is in charge, and there is nothing we can do, and there is nothing Pres Obama rhett o rick Jun 2014 #100
Isn't there smallcat88 Jun 2014 #102
Because some cowards are afraid of the precedent. NuclearDem Jun 2014 #103
Short answer pocoloco Jun 2014 #104

lpbk2713

(42,753 posts)
1. They still have money and still (not coincidentally) have powerful friends.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:23 AM
Jun 2014



That's how our system works. They are recipients of the best justice money can buy.


Dark n Stormy Knight

(9,760 posts)
12. The wealthy don't usually buy justice, but instead pay to deprive others of justice.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:53 AM
Jun 2014

They have privilege and the means to avoid the justice that by rights would fall upon them from a great height.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
66. CIA whistleblower John Stockwell on the implications of the presidency of George H.W. Bush...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 06:56 PM
Jun 2014


"It's a giant step toward the national security state." -- John Stockwell

https://archive.org/details/AV_153_154_155-COVERT_ACTION

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
15. Rothschilds are so Old Money they're maybe the Oldest, apart from those stone money in Yap...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:08 PM
Jun 2014

Here are a couple of 20th century slavemasters, I mean, bankers...



Baron de Rothschild and Prescott Bush, sharing a moment and a bit o' information in this small world.



Rothschild and Freshfields founders’ had links to slavery, papers reveal

By Carola Hoyos
Financial Times

Two of the biggest names in the City of London had previously undisclosed links to slavery in the British colonies, documents seen by the Financial Times have revealed.

Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the banking family’s 19th-century patriarch, and James William Freshfield, founder of Freshfields, the top City law firm, benefited financially from slavery, records from the National Archives show, even though both have often been portrayed as opponents of slavery.

Far from being a matter of distant history, slavery remains a highly contentious issue in the US, where Rothschild and Freshfields are both active.

Companies alleged to have links to past slave injustices have come under pressure to make restitution.

JPMorgan, the investment bank, set up a $5m scholarship fund for black students studying in Louisiana after apologising in 2005 for the company’s historic links to slavery.

CONTINUED (with registration, etc) ...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c0f5014-628c-11de-b1c9-00144feabdc0.html



The back of the object they are examining shows typing in a box, formatted in a manner similar to what is often used in official US Government photos, for identifying content on the front of a photograph or treasure map.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
16. Funny, that ''too big to fail'' thing.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:15 PM
Jun 2014

For some reason, whenever there's a political purge around, Poppy always slips clear. Here's an amazing memoire from one who knew a couple of Nixon's team very well:



Ehrlichman, Haldeman and the "Jewish Plot" to Get Nixon

Who is Watergate?

by CLANCY SIGAL
CounterPunch, June 18, 2014

A tiny item in yesterday’s paper jogs my memory. The garage where, on this 42d anniversary, “Deep Throat” passed teasing information to WashPost reporter Bob Woodward is due to be demolished. People under a certain age probably don’t know about Watergate or have only a vague textbook idea. Or they picked it up from Pakula’s great movie “All The President’s Men” where Robt Redford plays the restrained gentile journalist Woodward and Dustin Hoffman the pushy Jewish foot-in-the-door Carl Bernstein. The film made investigative reporting not only popular but respectable…that is until our present administration began cracking down on hardnose reporters.

I am personally responsible for the break in by five CIA employees into the Democratic Natl Hq at the Watergate office complex. Let’s walk this back a bit. Among Pres Nixon’s close aides in the 1970s who went into the slammer for (among other crimes) obstruction of justice were my two UCLA drinking buddies also my political enemies, Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. The “third man” at UCLA, also a drinking companion at Westwood’s Glen bar, was Alex Butterfield, another Nixon aide, who spilled the beans with his surprise disclosure that Nixon taped his criminal activities. (Later, when I spoke to Alex, who was never prosecuted, and asked if it was all a CIA plot to dethrone the president, he just smiled at me signaling well yeah maybe but you didn’t hear it from me.)

Haldeman, Ehrlichman and I were BMOC, big men on campus, sharing the same student activities building. The Wasp culture then was to wear a cheerful, slightly robotic Pepsodent smile even when stabbing another student in the back. The mantra was: “It’s not personal, Clancy.” They were ferociously anti-Red, but we didn’t let a little thing like that get in the way of fraternity-style palship. (Bob was Beta Sig, John Kapp Sig, I a “barbarian” which is what Greek Row called non-orgs.)

One day, as the campus paper’s managing editor, I walked into the Dean of Students office where Ehrlichman was the Dean’s fraternity liason and surprised him with a magnifying class bent over photographs of student demonstrators (including me) marking in red crayon the most dangerous subversives. “Hey John, whatcha doing?” He just smiled blandly, “Oh, you caught me.” Much later he confessed that identifying fellow students to the FBI and LA police “red squad” was his “ongoing counterintelligence function” whatever that means.

I visited Haldeman in prison at Lompoc and Ehrlichman in New Mexico just before he began his sentence. They were happy to talk and talk and talk. Just like the old days at the Glen. Haldeman, the more buttoned up of the duo, was the most revealing. He said that Watergate was born in old campus struggles that centered on the UCLA Daily BruinDin the grip of “Jewish liberals” like me who had it in for him over a long-forgotten fraternity scandal involving, yes!, a dead puppy dog. (I protested to Bob that I wasn’t a liberal then but a radical but he just blinked uncomprehendingly, I was trying to fool him again, libs and rads what’s the difference?)

Follow the logic: Jews-and-liberals (same thing) control the media (campus newspaper) in their vendetta against loyal Americans. By extension, when Nixon is in the White House and brings in the three UCLA boys, ALL media is controlled by Jewish liberals who have never forgiven Haldeman for that damn puppy dog.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/06/18/who-is-watergate/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=who-is-watergate



So some who are above the law are more above the law than others. Where that leaves those of us who actually follow the law and live under it means we also find ourselves under "Them."

PS: You are always most welcome, Uncle Joe!

The_Commonist

(2,518 posts)
4. Come on, you of ALL people know the answer to that!
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:28 AM
Jun 2014

Shit tons of money and all the best connections a sociopath can buy.

And the violence. They are clearly perfectly willing to use violence to get what they want.
I'm convinced that there's a gun pointing at Obama's head, and his children's and just about everybody else who could do something about them (Nancy "Impeachment is Off the Table" Pelosi). And people know these guys wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger. Not for one second.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
28. Sorry, The_Commonist. I do sound like a maddeningly scratched record...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:55 PM
Jun 2014

...a maddeningly scratched record...a maddeningly scratched record...a maddeningly scratched record...

However, as Corporate McPravda won't dare raise the question, we must ask it on behalf of the thousands of dead US service men and women -- and uncounted hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis.

As for the kinder, gentler machine-gun hand: Yep, they would not hesitate to fire.

Is the Congressional Leadership AFRAID of the BFEE?



Who remembers the Highway of Death after Iraq War I (graphic warning for the nannie set)? The guy has no respect for human life, especially when the cameras of Corporate McPravda can be focused elsewhere.

Odd how one family name seems to run through the last century of US history.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
60. ''No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon...the (WTC)...''
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 05:33 PM
Jun 2014
KEAN: I've got a question now I'd like to ask you. It was given to me by a number of members of the families.

Did you ever see or hear from the FBI, from the CIA, from any other intelligence agency, any memos or discussions or anything else between the time you got into office and 9/11 that talked about using planes as bombs?

RICE: Let me address this question because it has been on the table.

I think that concern about what I might have known or we might have known was provoked by some statements that I made in a press conference. I was in a press conference to try and describe the August 6 memo, which I've talked about here in my opening remarks and which I talked about with you in the private session.

And I said, at one point, that this was a historical memo, that it was -- it was not based on new threat information. And I said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile."

As I said to you in the private session, I probably should have said, "I could not have imagined," because within two days, people started to come to me and say, "Oh, but there were these reports in 1998 and 1999. The intelligence community did look at information about this."

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us.

I cannot tell you that there might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst.

Part of the problem is -- and I think Sandy Berger made this point when he was asked the same question -- that you have thousands of pieces of information -- car bombs and this method and that method -- and you have to depend to a certain degree on the intelligence agencies to sort to tell you what is actually relevant, what is actually based on sound sources, what is speculative.

RICE (sic): And I can only assume or believe that perhaps the intelligence agencies thought that the sourcing was speculative.

All that I can tell you is that it was not in the August 6 memo, using planes as a weapon. And I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons. In fact, there were some reports done in '98 and '99. I was certainly not aware of them at the time that I spoke.

KEAN: You didn't see any memos to you or any documents to you?

RICE: No, I did not.

SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/



Rice's now obvious perjury brings up another couple o' questions to ask Bush and Cheney individually: "Why did you insist on testifying TOGETHER to the 9-11 commission and ONLY on the condition that you ARE NOT UNDER OATH?"

johnnyreb

(915 posts)
89. And Off The Record!!
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:12 PM
Jun 2014
Mr. Bush's reluctant and restrictive cooperation with the panel is consistent with the administration's pattern of stonewalling reasonable requests for documents and testimony and then giving up only the minimum necessary ground when the dispute becomes public. Today's testimony will be in private in the White House, away from reporters or television cameras. The session will not be recorded, and there will be no formal transcript.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/29/opinion/the-president-s-testimony.html


They lied about everything! *

* (Except 9/11)

canoeist52

(2,282 posts)
6. "United States v. George W. Bush et al." by Elizabeth De La Vega, a former federal prosecutor.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:29 AM
Jun 2014

She lays out how it should or could have been done.

"From Publishers Weekly
By revisiting public statements, official documents and journalistic reports from the months leading up to the Iraq invasion, de la Vega builds a legal case that President Bush and top members of his administration engaged in a conspiracy to "deceive the American public and Congress into supporting the war." Drawing on her experience as a federal prosecutor, as well as the work of scholars and legal experts, she brings a well-honed legal perspective to the issue. She presents her argument in transcript form as a hypothetical weeklong presentation to a grand jury, including extensive testimony from three fictional investigative agents."

http://www.amazon.com/United-States-George-Bush-al/dp/B005Q6W894

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
61. Ms. Elizabeth De La Vega has INTEGRITY.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 05:41 PM
Jun 2014
Tomgram:

Elizabeth de la Vega, Bringing Bush to Court

Posted by Tom Engelhardt
TomDispatch at 11:08am, November 27, 2006.

Keep in mind, I've run Tomdispatch.com for only a few years, but I've been a book editor in mainstream publishing for over 30 years. Sometime last spring, I was on the phone with former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega talking about books she might someday write, when she suddenly said to me, "You know what I'd like to do?" When I asked what, she replied, "What I've done all my life."

"What's that," I wondered innocently enough.

"I'd like to draft an indictment of President Bush and his senior aides, and present the case for prewar intelligence fraud to a grand jury, just as if it were an actual case of mine, using the evidence we already have in the public record. That's the book I'd like to do."

With those three decades of publishing experience, I never doubted that this was an idea whose time should come -- and now it has. De la Vega has drawn up that indictment -- a "hypothetical" one, she hastens to add -- convened that grand jury, and held seven days of testimony. Yes, it's a grand jury directly out of her fertile brain and the federal agents who testify are fictional, but all the facts are true. She understands the case against the Bush administration down to the last detail; and she's produced, to my mind, the book of the post-election, investigative season: United States v. George W. Bush et al.

It's a Tomdispatch.com book project, produced in conjunction with Seven Stories Press, a superb independent publisher, and officially published on December 1st. I think it's simply sensational. It makes a "slam dunk" case for the way we were defrauded into war; despite the grim subject matter, it's a beautifully designed little book, a pleasure to hold in your hand; and, because de la Vega is a natural as a writer, it's also thoroughly enjoyable reading. With genuine pride, I'll be turning the Tomdispatch.com website over to excerpts from the book this week, beginning with the posting of De la Vega's introduction on the Enronization of American foreign policy today. The actual "indictment" will be posted on Wednesday; the first day of grand jury testimony on Thursday.

I assure you, this is must-read event; no less important, this is a must-buy book that must be given over the holiday season to friends, relatives, those who politically disagree with you, and even perhaps sent to Congressional representatives. Please get the investigative ball rolling by purchasing the book at Amazon.com or, if you want to give all involved a few extra cents, directly at the Seven Stories website.

Today, United States v. George W. Bush et al remains in the realm of fiction, but tomorrow, if you lend a hand who knows? Tom

CONTINUED to Ms. De La Vega and her book: A Fraud Worse than Enron

Unlike the warmongers who've profited from their positions of power for decades, she stands up for what is right and lawful. Wow. What a concept, justice.
 

Exposethefrauds

(531 posts)
7. Because the Democratic Party Leadership is no longer interested in prosecution of war criminals
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 11:31 AM
Jun 2014

So now it is a-ok for the USA to commit war crimes.



Octafish

(55,745 posts)
69. Just in case the president needs to crush the testicles of a child.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 07:29 PM
Jun 2014

Bush Tortured Prisoners, Even Children. Like the NAZIs.



Questions Not Asked: Torturing People's Children, War Powers, Geneva Conventions

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1204

Today torture is as American as apple pie.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
70. Thank you, canoeist52!
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 07:38 PM
Jun 2014

I will viddy this noche.

And please, like Rosa Luxemburg said, make it an OP and put it in your Journal.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
83. The bad ones they kept on the Federal payroll.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:30 PM
Jun 2014

And in so doing, one crazy warmonger in cheat has gotten clean away.



Was Carol Lam Targeting The White House Prior To Her Firing?

By Faiz Shakir on Mar 19, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Referring to the Bush administration’s purge of former San Diego-based U.S. attorney Carol Lam, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) questioned recently on the Senate floor whether she was let go because she was “about to investigate other people who were politically powerful.”

The media reports this morning that among Lam’s politically powerful targets were former CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and then-House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA). But there is evidence to believe that the White House may also have been on Lam’s target list. Here are the connections:

– Washington D.C. defense contractor Mitchell Wade pled guilty last February to paying then-California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham more than $1 million in bribes.

– Wade’s company MZM Inc. received its first federal contract from the White House. The contract, which ran from July 15 to August 15, 2002, stipulated that Wade be paid $140,000 to “provide office furniture and computers for Vice President Dick Cheney.”

– Two weeks later, on August 30, 2002, Wade purchased a yacht for $140,000 for Duke Cunningham. The boat’s name was later changed to the “Duke-Stir.” Said one party to the sale: “I knew then that somebody was going to go to jail for that…Duke looked at the boat, and Wade bought it — all in one day. Then they got on the boat and floated away.”

– According to Cunningham’s sentencing memorandum, the purchase price of the boat had been negotiated through a third-party earlier that summer, around the same time the White House contract was signed.


CONTINUED w/LINKS...

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/03/19/11209/carol-lam-white-house/



No matter how many $1000 an hour suits they lawyer up, a few things, like the prosecution of traitors and warmongers, are too important to let drop. And there are many trails leading right back to the War Monkey.

former9thward

(31,984 posts)
17. What countries are those?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:24 PM
Jun 2014

No government anywhere has brought charges against them. And no, private advocacy groups have no legal effect.

 

adigal

(7,581 posts)
23. Cheney cancelled a trip to Canada last year, and Bush to Switzerland
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:31 PM
Jun 2014

for fear that those advocacy groups would get them arrested.

Nigeria has an arrest warrant out for Cheney. And Malaysia convicted them of war crimes, too.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-791925

And I could swear Italy or Germany had charges up because of the "black holes" they were sending prisoners of war to.

former9thward

(31,984 posts)
50. None to all of those.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 02:46 PM
Jun 2014

Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Malaysia and Nigeria do not have arrest warrants and no one has convicted them of anything. The only groups that have 'convicted' them of anything are private groups. Private groups have no legal standing anywhere. It would be like you and me getting together and convicting them of something. It might make us feel good but it would have no legal standing to anyone else.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
96. Pinochet got pinched in Pommyland
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:30 PM
Jun 2014
Pinochet arrested in London

By David Connett, John Hooper and Peter Beaumont
theguardian.com, Saturday 17 October 1998 20.29 EDT

General Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator who presided over a 17-year reign of terror and ordered foreign assassinations, was arrested at a London hospital on Friday night by police acting on a request from Spain.

Pinochet, 82, was arrested at the London Bridge hospital on a warrant - an Interpol Red Notice - which alleges that between 1973 and 1983 he committed atrocities against Spanish citizens. He was held as he was convalescing after minor surgery to his back.

The news of Pinochet's seizure by Scotland Yard officers was greeted with euphoria by Chilean exiles and former victims of his torture. Among them was the former personal doctor of President Salvador Allende, who perished in Pinochet's coup. "It is a great triumph of justice," said Dr Oscar Soto. "Pinochet must now give account for more than 3,000 deaths, exiles and tortures in the 17 years of his dictatorship."

SNIP...

His arrest is the result of a year-long struggle by Madrid judges Baltasar Garzon and Manuel Garcia Castellon to have Pinochet brought to account for the brutality that followed his overthrow of the government of Allende.

SNIP...

Garzon also wants to question him about Operation Condor, an organised plan of repression allegedly implemented by various Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s.

CONTINUED...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/1998/oct/18/pinochet.chile

So, there is the hope that their circumstances will change. Poppy's not out of the woods for his role in Operation CONDOR.
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
14. Is it against the law to lead us into war on false pretenses?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:08 PM
Jun 2014

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
34. You're so funny.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:33 PM
Jun 2014

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
36. Laugh at me all you want, but the rule of law is extremely important
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:46 PM
Jun 2014

Without it we are screwed, and that unlike myself is not so funny.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
98. The money is that good.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:36 PM
Jun 2014


Hence, Carlyle Group can make money by knowing the hot regions and sectors before the rest of the financial community, as well as target those industries that the insiders are talking about, seeing how they own the NSA's biggest contractor, Booze Allen. Small world. And it's totally Buy-Partisan.

SamKnause

(13,091 posts)
21. Why you ask ???
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:29 PM
Jun 2014

The United States government is corrupt; all branches.

The United States has a two tier justice system.

The United States threatens all countries that want the Bush administration held accountable.

The United States is not a member of The International Criminal Court.

The United States has a history of invading and destroying countries.

The United States has a history of backing coups and installing dictators.

If you are rich, powerful, and connected the law does not apply to you.

That is the only rational and logical explanation.

They protect their kind at all costs.

Look at the state of the world economy.

Corruption has infested every government on the planet.

They have allowed the wealth of the planet to be legally stolen from the working class and poor.

This is being done intentionally.

To pretend it is not, is insanity.

Response to Octafish (Original post)

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
106. I believe you are correct, Corruption Inc.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 01:27 PM
Jun 2014

The nation's political leadership allows the economic elite to get away with all manner of criminality. The converse also holds true. Out of the loop and shorted of loot, power and democracy are We the People.

Takket

(21,561 posts)
25. what about the next administration?
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:36 PM
Jun 2014

Assuming it is democrat, do you think the next preident would move forward with charges? How is that even done? Who determines if they are gonig to arrest and prosecute? The AG?

Obviously Obama isn't touching this, but i'm sure there is no statute of limitations on war crimes. they just arrested some 89 year old nazi guard today.

Scarsdale

(9,426 posts)
26. $$$
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:45 PM
Jun 2014

Short version, $$$. Long version, too many others complicit. Does W have dementia, those paintings look suspiciously like "therapy" don't they??

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
27. We no longer believe in the rule of law in this country
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 12:54 PM
Jun 2014
We no longer have the rule of law in this country

For the rule of law to be more than a lawless tool used to imprison the impoverished, for the rule of law to actually exist, we can not have the wealthy and politicians as a class above the law. Proclaiming that criminals will not be investigated and convicted if proven guilty is obstruction and the act of an accomplice, making the one shielding the criminals a criminal as well. We may not like these facts, but they are facts.

It is called justice this thing we have lost, and the rule of law. Banana republics don't understand justice, nor do those that cheer on the lack of it, if Obama wanted to forgive war crimes or trillion dollar thieves in the banking industry the legal way to do so is with pardons, "looking forward" beyond crimes and refusing to investigate well heeled criminals is not an actual legal defense. Some appear to think only some people are bound by our laws, pathetic. He is not the first to insist on abandoning justice, Iran/Contra, Watergate, dozens of other examples - and he won't be the last in this our new banana republic.

iamthebandfanman

(8,127 posts)
31. Because the Obama administration
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:21 PM
Jun 2014

said they wouldn't pursue charges right off the bat...

might have something to do with it.





and in doing so, he is being complicit .. therefor a part of the crime.

Scalded Nun

(1,236 posts)
32. ALL OF THEM!
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:27 PM
Jun 2014

Let's not forget Wolfowitz, Gonzalez, the others I cannot remember, and every asshole that authorized/engaged in torture. If they can go after an SS guard now after 70 years they should be able to go after these nasty pieces of work. Following orders is no excuse, at least that is what we say when it works to our advantage.

 

supercats

(429 posts)
35. Prison Is More Than They Deserve
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:44 PM
Jun 2014

They need to feel the pain for the rest of their lives, in isolation with no communication with the outside world.

FiveGoodMen

(20,018 posts)
82. Isn't everyone who hasn't -- and continues not to -- even try to investigate and prosecute
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:11 PM
Jun 2014

protecting them?

tclambert

(11,085 posts)
39. I don't think ignoring warnings is a crime. I would have led with TORTURE.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:52 PM
Jun 2014

ignoring warnings is stupid, possible negligent. I suppose you could argue depraved indifference resulting in manslaughter.

But torturing prisoners, that's illegal to the point of being a war crime. We should let The Hague have at them.

Rosa Luxemburg

(28,627 posts)
45. Being asleep at the wheel re 9/11 led to deaths of thousands of people
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:59 PM
Jun 2014

yes they thought they were smart. They should have been punished and all military leaders responsible should have been court matialed and jailed too.

Response to Octafish (Original post)

Response to The Magistrate (Reply #44)

Response to The Magistrate (Reply #44)

 

albino65

(484 posts)
43. They have already been convicted in Kuala Lumpur
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 01:56 PM
Jun 2014

Why doesn't someone deliver them to that country? Send them one by one, or en masse. There have to be monied, connected, and resourceful progressives willing to undertake such a task.

EX500rider

(10,839 posts)
87. Not by the Malaysian government though..
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:07 PM
Jun 2014
The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, has suggested the tribunal is a private enterprise with no legal basis and questions its legitimacy. The tribunal does not have a UN mandate or recognition, no power to order arrests or impose sentences, and it is unclear that its verdicts have any but symbolic significance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission

randys1

(16,286 posts)
51. Same reason Nixon didnt go to prison, or Reagan, both having committed treason to get elected
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 02:47 PM
Jun 2014

Why didnt MLK Jr's assassin, J Edgar Hoover, ever go to prison?

Same reason, power.

Clearly the FBI killed MLK but people dont even talk about it...

 

obxhead

(8,434 posts)
53. We had to look forward
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 02:50 PM
Jun 2014

Because the current admin and congress fully intended (and has) continued the same lawlessness.

aint_no_life_nowhere

(21,925 posts)
59. Instead of prison, just put Bush, Cheney and the gang on a plane to Iraq and dump them on the
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 04:45 PM
Jun 2014

sidewalk downtown in any city. Fallujah would be good.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
62. That would make a great reality tee vee series.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 05:50 PM
Jun 2014

Concept Running Man meets the nice farming family from The Road...



Please, the royalties from the home version board game alone would make us wealthy.

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
71. It's the age old formula, Octafish...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 07:49 PM
Jun 2014

… If the Howard Zinn book, "The People's History of the United States" (1492 to present) were reduced to a recipe…

1) Invasion and Occupation (since Columbus so effectively did that with native tribal society in the Americas)

2) Infuse a healthy dose of mythology to reduce belief systems to a simmer of invaded occupants

3) Drain after steeping in poverty, those that can be pitted against each other, in order to float to the surface

4) Drain again after reducing education level, until layers of fodder are ready to be folded into military or debt slaves

5) Add fear…. and then more fear… and a final fear presented with the head wrapped in a towel in hot sand with myth

6) Simmer very, very slowly in oil… sweet… then tar sanded, finally fracked

This serves no one, my good friend, but those who were supposed to be perp walked.

Rosa Luxemburg

(28,627 posts)
76. We need to be a bit different from the norm
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:01 PM
Jun 2014

In medieval times people traitors like cheney and bush were put in stocks in the village square and pelted with excrement and other things!

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
80. At this point in desperation, I'll take excrement pelting...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:04 PM
Jun 2014

… over anything this groups has gotten away with constitutionally via internationally court.

I'll even supply the gloves!

 

antiGOPin294

(53 posts)
73. Because the justice system in this country favors the elite.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 07:56 PM
Jun 2014

Not to mention, 50% of the population voted for Bush twice. These people would resort to anything to keep the Bush gang out of jail, even violence.

Response to Octafish (Original post)

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
78. Far be it from me to ruin a good Bush bashing
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:03 PM
Jun 2014

But all he has to say is "I thought I was acting in the best interest of our country," and that's it. Unless you have verifiable, incontrovertible, tangible proof of criminal wrongdoing; then there is no case.

He was smart enough to not take any money himself, or to document the processes behind some of the decisions he made; and that means we, the rest of the country, have bupkis.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
88. No, it is not that simple for Bush, nor Cheney and Blair.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:09 PM
Jun 2014

It was the pretext of WMD against a sovereign nation to begin and the charges continue to mount from there
going forward.

Let us put the politics of prosecuting a US president aside for a moment, and our seriously deep nationalism and
look at the crimes against humanity.

Number one, we did this to this country without provocation, we waged a war of aggression. That in and
of itself becomes examined and Bush et al does not get a legal pass by claiming he thought he was
acting in the best interest of his country.

As a direct result of that aggression we saw the crimes of Abu Ghraib, there are approximately
one million dead people, the crimes of Fallujia, there were civilian massacres. We went ahead of
what the UN Security Council stated, send the inspectors to go to Iraq and then we'll
make recommendations based on that report..we did not wait. Within that decision we know
they had no intention of waiting because they did not want any interference.

As a nation, we signed the UN Charter, the essence of which no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. We can use force in connection with self-defense, yet, we can't use force in anticipation of self-defense.

The UNSC resolutions dating back to the Gulf War as an excuse as GW Bush claimed is bullshit.

The above represents state sponsored war crimes, and I will remind you of officials who quit in the
lead up to the invasion ( UK officials ) because they knew it was an illegal invasion. The UK is a
signer of the ICC, so these individuals were not going to take the chance.

Remember here too, that although I am no fan of Justice Kennedy, what he wrote about the
case..Hamdan v Rumsfeld is very important. He says, essentially, that Bush tried to ignore
the Geneva Convention and in doing so, may have opened a window to be prosecuted
for war crimes. That is a sitting conservative on the SCOTUS saying that.

The politics of this situation is a whole other problem...one that will likely
save their asses..unfortunately.

Calista241

(5,586 posts)
91. That's not evidence
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:03 PM
Jun 2014

As long as Bush can plausibly say that he thought at the time, that Iraq had WMD, it's case closed. And that's not a huge leap, the case we put forward convinced 1/2 the world into joining our coalition. Unless we can come up with some communication that says "come up with some shit so i can start a war," then it doesn't matter.

And AG Gonzales's memo gave Bush all the legal cover he needed to open and run Guantanamo. We can't change the laws today, and the prosecute someone for shit they did in the past when it was legal.

When it comes down to it, Bush never shot or tortured anyone, and he most likely never told anyone to shoot or torture innocent people.

And nothing we did in Iraq can be judged systemic. Yes, Abu Ghraib was bad, very bad. But unless there were 10 Abi Ghraib's, and we never did anything to reform those places once they were public, then there's nothing to prosecute. Besides, all this happened over in Iraq. US courts have no jurisdiction.

And no President, ever, is going to turn a former President over to some international court for whatever witch hunt someone from somewhere wants to prosecute them for.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
93. That is ridiculous, there are those who presided over the Nuremberg trials and have weighed in
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:10 PM
Jun 2014

against Bush. There are intellectuals such as Chomsky who have discussed their crimes at length.
You have Justice Kennedy's ruling in Hamdan v Rumsfeld.

You're confusing a poor legal argument from the idiot Gonzales having the strength against
a world court prosecutor.

As I said, politics is placed aside..the crimes and the evidence exist in abundance as well
as the violations at the UNSC.

NuttyFluffers

(6,811 posts)
84. because this question needs to be asked regularly.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 08:53 PM
Jun 2014

this is truly an important matter. war criminals deserve justice! deprive them not!

rustydog

(9,186 posts)
86. Ask Pelosi, not us
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 09:02 PM
Jun 2014

She took Impeachment off the table when Dems took control of the House...Ask her, not us.

Martin Eden

(12,863 posts)
92. From inside a lonely prison cell ...
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:09 PM
Jun 2014

I wrote this poem to express what I wanted to say to W when he left office:


I'd tell you to go fuck yourself
But that is much too kind
Because if you could perform that feat
You'd take pleasure in your behind

I'd like to say eat shit and die
But you deserve much more
You should suffer all the grief and pain
Of your misbegotten war

Though I can never make you feel
Or think, or understand
I'll take solace when you hear your name
Cursed throughout the land

From inside a lonely prison cell
Dark and bare and cold
Where every day you pay for your crimes
Until you're sick, heartbroken, and old

Then when you finally leave the earth
You fucked over oh so well
If there is a God and afterlife
You're going straight to hell.

Martin Eden

(12,863 posts)
97. Yes, I wrote it when Bush left office.
Thu Jun 19, 2014, 10:31 PM
Jun 2014

I've always liked to dabble in poetry as a means of personal expression.

And I've always been a fairly tolerant person, taking the advice of Atticus Finch and trying to walk around in another person's shoes.

But GW Bush, Dick Cheney, et al inspired in me rage and hatred, expressed in the cruel thoughts of this poem I wrote.

smallcat88

(426 posts)
102. Isn't there
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:57 AM
Jun 2014

some unwritten 'political brotherhood' thing that influences anyone who actually makes it as far as the White House to pardon former presidents or not pursue criminal charges against them? The theory being that any president who did that would be setting a precedent for all presidents who come after, including him/herself.

It's gutless but them so is most of Washington. And all the more reason for We The People to be more active in pushing for criminal accountability for presidents and their administrations, congress, and all politicians down to the local level. They are not going to police their own unless it somehow serves their political agenda.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why aren't Bush and Chene...