...and I will not link to any posts that discuss this phenomenon.

K &R
I commend you for your post. You are trying.

what we were being told before the 2004 and 2008 elections, throughout the horrendous and criminal Cheney/Bush years. We were told 'there is HOPE' that 'CHANGE' would come. We were told in various ways that we would 'return to the Rule of Law'.

The first cracks in these false promises began to show when, due to our hard work with the goal of CHANGING the way things were, Democrats WON the House. But right before that happened, Nancy Pelosi warned 'that Impeachment (of Bush) was off the table'. That was a shock, I remember it well.

People wanted to know how one person could make such a definitive statement when those who were about to win the House FOR them, WANTED the Bush gang investigated.

Just like that, with no room to even discuss it, we were told that there would be NO TALK of Impeachment.

It was hard to understand, Democrats protecting those who had mocked them, called them cowards, had their propaganda machine paint them as anti-American. So what obligation did Pelosi have to protect those liars and cheats and propagandists?

But that was the beginning of the process of learning that something was not quite right. Time and time again, see Plame, Whistle Blowers etc, what was the RIGHT thing to do, we were told was the WRONG thing to do.

You would have to have been able to totally erase everything you always believed in regarding this country's democracy, to get into lockstep with what you were being asked to just ACCEPT.

The good guys ended up in jail, the bad guys continue to act like they run this country. Crimes like torture are EXPLAINED to us, we are told not to judge the Torturers harshly because we need to understand them.

Thanks for the OP, it sure has been a long journey to where we have ended up. Now we have to decide what to do about it all.

What to do.

There are so many different levels of understanding and information in all of America. Were we cohesive, something might be more easily done to return us to the rule of law, equal justice.

And now leadership is particularly lacking. Anyone who might rise to leadership is certainly targeted.

do something about all of it, would not survive. THAT is a scary thought. Otoh, no one who has not indicated that they are on board with the way things are, has a chance of getting anywhere near a powerful position.

It would take a cultural change to undo the harm that has been under way for many decades. We have been so propagandized that even normally intelligent people buy into the 'our country right or wrong' meme.

However, I have faith that things WILL change, they have throughout history when things looked hopeless.

The great and wonderful Powers That Be -PTB, told the American people they could go fuck themselves, and we did.

so sadly

would be the case if they were charged with treason and war crimes.

and I don't think you'd even come close to getting enough elected officials to go along with it.

is it right? no. is it the way things are? yes.

If the full truth were known, the pictures shown, the law explained, you don't think the majority of Americans would be for justice? You don't think the people want a system of fairness that applies to all? You think that when they hear the atrocities, including children being raped in front of their parents, skin being scraped off with bristle brushes or burned of with chemicals, or being buried alive will change anyone's minds? I sincerely doubt that.

people who do vote, are republicans.
confronted with cold hard facts, those who don't want to believe, will tell themselves not to. some people won't give a fuck either way.

a sizeable number of Neanderthal repukes would actually cheerlead the torture of foreign people and lies of bushco, out of hate.

the moderate (I don't mean that as in the DU parlance, ie DLCer, just not that politically involved, not political junkies like us) dems would say "yeah I think bushco were assholes for lying us into war but damn, the hangman's noose or life in prison is too much"

you'd have a sizeable portion of the country in a froth... govt would grind to a halt as it would be all consuming in the media... a few Lieberman style "dems" would be all over the media against it... the Bundy ranch type people might actually start shooting the joint up...

if anything could tear the country apart, this would be it.

call me a cynic or pessimist if you will, I am not against the sentiment, I just think reality sucks, and it would backfire hugely...

feel free to disagree, I wouldn't blame you. 10 years ago, as a young man, I was on the prosecute for war crimes train. now I'm way too jaded to think it could ever succeed... I've seen way too much willful ignorance, stupidity, and apathy, to think it could

what you said.. "....If the full truth were known, the pictures shown, the law explained..." sticks out for me, because I once believed it, too. after a chunk of America thought Palin was qualified to be VP, I began to think otherwise.

Republicans win because of gerrymandered districts. Everyone knows that nationally they are in the minority and even more so if we take out the electoral college.

What I'm saying is that we must stop being afraid of Republicans. They are a loud minority propped up by the MSM. If young people are cynical it's because there was no Hope and Change, just politics.

Jesus Christ, why is fear the only answer? The Republicans did shut down government. But in the end they lost. And now we need to be afraid of some Bundy kooks too? Really? A tiny minority of nutcases run this country?

I'm asking these questions because I don't think any of them are remotely true. Even the powerful military and intelligence agencies have seen pushback from within. Are we supposed to just throw up our hands and give in to criminals? No. And I think if the facts were laid out, that most Americans would not stand for it. I know that all of Europe (perhaps some of the right wing politicians wouldn't) would support us.

We cannot be afraid to fight for what it right. We have seen great things happen against what looked like impossible odds. Civil Rights. Gay Rights. India gained its independence. The end of Apartheid. All of these things never would have happened if people were too afraid to fight. All of them won because they were on the side of righteousness.

of those clowns. my faith in the American public is low.

if the public demanded it, it could happen, because politicians are like windsocks.

pardon me if I am a downer. following politics 24/7 since 2001 has left me very jaded and tired.. I need to recharge my batteries, shall I not burn out.
(edit: no don't give up cause I'm burnt out and jaded following it, keep on keeping on)

If there was a public outcry, something might happen. At least we could say we tried. Which is why I'm so shocked that so many people here think it is their duty to shut it down. I find it appalling.

And I hear you about burn out. My head and my heart really hurts about this. It seems like the last straw for me.

Probably 30% are teatalitarians or lean teatalitarian to a greater or lesser degree.

Overlapping somewhat with this group though not completely coextensive with them are the mouth-breathing god-botherers who think dinosaurs were ridden like ponies, perhaps by the Flintstones. IOW people too fucking stupid to wipe their asses without pictorial instructions printed on the toilet paper.

Another huge group don't give a fuck about anything more complex than tonight's teevee schedule.

100% are lied to 24 hours a day by the corporate media, who serve only to brainwash in the name of the 1%.

This country is pretty fucked.

I do think the teabillies and pseudo-Christians probably overlap the most. Information is attacked all over, from education to the media. But certain things I do believe resonate. I doubt many mothers would be on the side of torturers if they knew that it happened to children. Even Muslim children. Just as young people might not be so hardened and racist to think people deserved the brutality. And if service people who have seen the light spoke out, it would help. I don't know, maybe I'm not cynical enough yet to believe that this country is so vile as to accept torture. But that was the main problem with Obama's speech, it was foaming the runway. A Democrat, that I voted for. And look, it worked on quite a few people here.

will have to be less the peaceable and future Presidents will keep their noses cleaner as to avoid leaving the White House in chains or a body bag.

That town really needs an enema and if it takes a few cycles of prosecutions to do it then that is what is required to restore rule of law and equality under it.

...and the departing president made the new president promise to never investigate or prosecute as a price of a peaceful transition, wouldn't it be the honorable thing to do to lie their ass off?

Because if that had occurred then effectively a coup was already accomplished. "Peaceful transition" is rendered illusory by the mere consideration of violence as a motivation for failing to do the right thing. And neither honor nor constitutional oath sanction ducking the issue. If that is what happened then the country should have been informed. It would have made for hard times ... but that is, in the long run, unavoidable if in fact that had occurred.

I really don't think that was the case, in any event. I think it was a political decision. My interpretation was that Obama and the nation had huge problems to face, and was hoping to retain some possibility of bipartisan action. Going after elements of the prior administration would have sucked all the air out of the room, and made progress on the other (and dire) problems facing the nation even more difficult if not impossible.

In this best case scenario, it is a pragmatic decision. In the median case, it is capitulation. And in the worst case scenario, it is actual collaboration. I won't pretend, at this point, to the ability to discern the order of Obama's heart. I will therefore extend the benefit of the doubt and assume he did it for pragmatic reasons.

I still do not concur. But I cede the possibility, nay, the likelihood, that his motives were well intended.

Trav

I think it's safe to say that all subsequent Presidents know what really happened on that sad day in 1963.

Especially Democratic presidents who are, I am sure, told upon election what they cannot and will not do unless they want to end up just like JFK.

Yes, I know life is way more complicated than that.

But the smart thing to do would be to make a record of it all, because the ones who tried to make you promise have committed treason and violated the oath of office to protect and defend the constitution.

eom

All of those rationalizations are based on fear...and the good thing about fear (good for those who use it as a tool) is there is an inexhaustible amount of new things and situations that can turned into something to be afraid of.

And now we have come to the climax of it...we are now being told to be afraid of punishing the law breakers because they won't like it and do something bad to us...when you hear that just know you will have to give up all moral principle or face the fear head on.

Through Fear.

Unfortunately, the surveillance state makes it increasingly harder to organize, to gather, to create concensus, to overcome fear by transmitting truth.

I thought Republicans were consumed by fear, but now I know it's quite a few Democrats as well.

Has never signed anything, either Internationally nor at home, involving Human Rights. The US of A does not recognized Human Rights!

By all means, impeach Presidents and prosecute lawbreakers while they are in office, but once they are out of office, they can no longer be subject to prosecution unless we want to see a President like Bush declare martial law and invalidate election results just so he won't have to pay the piper for his own crimes.

The "peaceful transition of power" implies that we tolerate injustice, but I think it's worth it to preserve democracy (i.e. regular elections by which power can change hands).

-Laelth

Before he leaves office?

And as for the criminal activity of former politicians and administration officials, it is pardoned? Or what?

I am certainly not calling for his impeachment. What I meant to suggest was that the time to bring charges against Bush and his cronies was in 2007 and 2008. Nancy Pelosi took impeachment "off the table," and so it didn't happen when the opportunity was available, but once Obama was sworn in, retaliation against Bush and his team became untenable as a threat to the peaceful transition of power.

-Laelth

charged with crimes like treason or other so-called "high crimes" after leaving office. There is a reason for that, and part of that reason is what you said. Presidents, particularly with regard to the use of the military, have a great deal of power that is granted to them by the Constitution and laws passed by various Congresses. That power has the potential for being misused, either intentionally or through a series of mistakes. But, the power exists, and it exists by law.

What that means is that it would be almost impossible to convict a former President for the use of those powers. Any such case would end up before the Supreme Court, which would look at the Constitution and the applicable laws granting exceptional powers to Presidents. Such a prosecution would fail for that reason.

In the meantime, given that the U.S. is almost equally divided between two parties, such a prosecution would result in such a powerful division that it would affect elections for decades to come.

Every President knows this. That is why no President has attempted to prosecute a former President for any such acts done while in office. That is not going to change. Of that I'm certain. Continuity and a peaceful transition between administrations is part of the reason, but not the only part of the reason.

No president wants the precedent of a former president being prosecuted.

It would have been different had the entire impeachment process played out and Nixon was convicted in the Senate, I suspect.

Senate trial. He probably would have been convicted and removed from office, which would have been an ugly precedent. So, under wise advice, he resigned, and was pardoned by Ford. That was not unexpected.

On the other hand, Bill Clinton did just the opposite. There was no impeachable offense involved at all, just a witch hunt by the House of Representatives, which was turned aside by the Senate. The process was followed and Clinton was not removed from office, and shouldn't have been. That set a different precedent and raised the bar for impeachment proceedings for future Presidents. Clinton also had wise advice and made the right decision.

Our system of government is a delicate balance. So far, that balance has not been disturbed to the extent that the system could not survive. Such a thing, however, could happen. Preventing it from happening is always a consideration for Presidents. President Obama would not prosecute the prior administration. Such a thing probably never entered his mind as a real possibility.

In fact, that has never received any serious consideration, except from people who would be just as happy to see the whole system come apart. I'm not one of those. I believe that the chaos that would result would be horrendous.

The moment one administration begins prosecution of the prior administration, there will be trials during EVERY transition.

No president is going to set the "send your predecessors to prison" precedent because that sets their own administration up for the same, regardless of whether or not any actual criminal acts occurred.

You seem to imply that every administration will be a criminal administration. And you may be right. Is it the nature of the position?

One does not have to commit a crime to do time.

The precedent is a path of "prior immunity" for any president and his/her administration. No matter the treason, no matter the war crime, no matter the corruption, no matter the moral turpitude, no matter the smashing of the Consitution, no matter the stolen election, no matter any of it. The precedent is set: no president will be held accountable.

Too bad about the concomitant smashing of our precious bedrock principle of "equal justice under the law" and so sad about the precedent that "crime pays if you're the POTUS".

I doubt that any true Democrat can support the permanent exculpation of crimes in office.

To be free to act above the law is to be a king.

Because that is precisely what will happen. Presidents of one party will imprison all from previous administrations of the other party upon taking office. And we will become a banana republic.

The course of action is to take action while the administration is still in office.

Which is as it should be.

I also long for a day when every citizen is secure in the knowledge that no one is above the law.

Your way invites more bitterness and rancor in the hearts of the citizenry than we even have now.

Something is sick and twisted about the lack of confidence you hold in our Constitution and our founding principles.

I feel the same way about the lack of confidence you hold in our Constitution and our founding principles.

Frightening indeed

are 100% correct.

...in a reply on this thread: Who would have been better than Obama?

47. You don't think they would have gone after Bush and Cheney, CIA torturers and the Banksters?

50. No, I don't think they would have.

The problem with going after them has to do with the continuity of government. Prosecuting a President and members of an administration is something that no President would take on, I believe. Such a prosecution would create a crisis in government that might never be recovered from.

Presidents have broad discretionary powers, especially with regard to military operations. To prosecute a former President or Vice President or cabinet members for such things just isn't something that any President is likely to do. Politically, it would be disastrous in a country so equally divided politically as the United States.

So, no, I don't believe anyone capable of being elected President would initiate any such prosecution. It has never happened, and is unlikely ever to happen. Reality is real.

Would such a prosecution be deserved? Certainly. Would it succeed? Almost certainly not. Would it cause extreme disruption in our political system? Absolutely it would. So, it hasn't been done and won't be done. No President will ever do it. We are too closely divided in this country for such a thing to happen, and I don't see that changing in any of our lifetimes.