Jeesus christ - must people be apologists for every goddamn move Obama makes???

is not coming out for prosecution the Bush admin because he is covering his own ass....that sounds about right....what a moral leader we have..

The "luxury" of being a moral leader? Because his policies are also illegal and thus he could be a target of prosecution as well? That's a pretty sad statement to make about a Democratic president.

domestic and prevailing international law (the U.N. Convention Against Torture).

It is not clear that drones violate either domestic or international law. They may, but I have yet to be entirely convinced of it.

That is sick.

the president was a republican?

DU would be on fire if that were the case.

n/t

This fucking mess needs to be cleaned up.

Playing politics with these issues cheapens the whole country. But I "believe" that nothing will be done and the rule of law will continue to be flaunted. Actually it seems to be an American tradition.
Foreign policy doctrines more or less practiced by the United States.

Monroe Doctrine – western hemisphere = US property; non-whites = untermenschen

McKinley Doctrine – Open Door Policy i.e., China, Pacific = potentially, possibly, most likely US property; non-whites = untermenschen

Roosevelt Corollary – western hemisphere = US property, and we mean it this time! non-whites = untermenschen

Taft Doctrine – Dollar Diplomacy i.e., western hemisphere = US property, and we mean economically, politically, and all other ways; the Middle East = potentially, possibly, most likely, US property

Wilson Doctrine – 14 Points internationalism (i.e., great powers should respect each other; to hell with the rest); western hemisphere = US property, and we really mean it this time! non-whites = untermenschen

Roosevelt Doctrine – “Good Neighbor Policy!” i.e., western hemisphere = US property, and we really really really fucking mean it.

Truman Doctrine – aid to fascists in Greece, Turkey, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, western Europe, Eastern Europe, North Africa, etc. i.e., what Kennan called “Containment.”

Eisenhower Doctrine – the Middle East = US property; non-whites = untermenschen; massive retaliation

Nixon Doctrine – enter neocolonialism: overthrowing governments, installing clients, using local elites to manage foreign populations for US advantage i.e., Asia, Africa, western hemisphere = US property, but we’re gonna try to be sneaky about it. Overall, see above.

Carter Doctrine – the Middle East = US property, and we aren’t kidding; trilateralism

Reagan Doctrine – “Rollback”; mutually assured destruction; low intensity warfare; support for rightwing Islamist groups, narcotics smuggling, etc.

Bush I Doctrine – New World Order; “What we say, goes.”

Clinton Doctrine – New World Order; “multilaterally if we can, unilaterally when we must.”

Bush II Doctrine – New World Order; “unilaterally when we can, multilaterally if we must.”

Obama Doctrine- Killer Capitalism with good diction. Drones R' US.

the burden is on you to prove legal liability.

No trial, no arrest, no justice department memos, just straight up killed by a Hellfire missile.

Samir Kahn, an American reporter doing his job, was also killed in this same attack. How much hell did we give Bush in the Iraq war for killing the reporters from Reuters?

For Obama's political enemies, these two cases would be a good place to start.

IIRC, was killed by a drone missile in a completely different drone attack a couple mForonths later (in Yemen?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

For commentary:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/obama-anwar-al-awlaki-son_n_3141688.html

That said, still not totally conceding your point, since al-Awlaki pere was a designated enemy combatant and so no longer entitled to full protections of due process accorded U.S. citizen-civilians under the Constitution. Was Kahn deliberately targeted or was he proverbial 'collateral damage'?

Please don't misunderstand me. I have grave moral reservations about the use of drones to execute people extra-judicially. Were I President, I probably would issue an EO to the military and CIA forbidding their use. But moral qualms and legal niceties are too entirely different realms.

I do take your point, though, that President Obama's political enemies would probably exploit al-Awlaki's death for any advantage they thought it might provide, conveniently ignoring the salient fact that Bush also authorized drone strikes (although not on Cameraman citizens to my knowledge).

It's better than the nothing we'll get in this country.

the International Criminal Court (or 'ICC'). The U.S. participates in the former by virtue of its membership in the U.N. and seat on the U.N. Security Council but is not a signatory to the latter (thanks to Bush).

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

vs.

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

I believe the U.S. could indeed be tried before the former but not the latter, as the U.S. does not recognize formally the legitimacy or jurisdiction of the latter.

the Republicans would prosecute a former President if they could.

Can you not remember they impeached Clinton over nothing.

Only the Dems play this game, and it's why they lose.

Last edited Thu Dec 11, 2014, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)

the things he did which related specifically to his presidency.

and impeachment is how you prosecute a President.

They lost that one, so didn't go after him again, and under Bush they had other things to do, like a indecent war and allowing Wall Street to destroy the economy.

What I'm saying is i don't think the Repugs give two figs what the Dems do in office, if they think going after a former President will work for them, they will.

Ans you also have to take into account that the Republicans in office actually committed crimes.
The Dems did not.

If it illegal to torture a suspected terrorist, is it ok to kill him with with a drone strike?

but the Republicans endorse it, so they wouldn't.

And Obama stands on much firmer legal footing using drones than Bush does with torture.

The drone strikes are open knowledge and Congress could stop it tomorrow if they want.

So I find your analogy weak at best and don't by the fear of future prosecution argument.

In other words, I have seen your argument before and I don't buy it.

use in areas where Congress has not authorized them may be 'unconstitutional,' but that's a different standard than 'illegal').

that's why they are in the4 trouble they are.

Obama could have vilified Bush, Cheney, Wall Street etc... for the criminals they were, he could have reminded America what happens when these people get control.

Instead he was all "let bygones be bygones"
Where did that get us?

he did which related specifically to his presidency. I guess you forgot.

After his presidency, there was no effort to prosecute him for action he took as President.

It is an action to strip an officeholder of their position that takes the form of an investigation and superficially resembles a trial, but it is not a criminal prosecution. It does not go before a judge, there is no Jury, just a vote by congress. If Clinton had been forced out of office by hte impeachment, that's all that would have happened - he would not have gone to prison, he would not have even been fined. he would have been fired, basically, and Gore would have been sworn in.

to prosecute a sitting President.

Yes they can be criminally prosecuted later, but not while in office.

And the point stands that the Repukes don't care and will not hesitate to go after another Dem President.
Whether these criminals are prosecuted or not.

but he is trying to say they won't go after another president if we leave Bushco alone.
I find that not only a false premiss, Clinton proves they will go after a Dem over nothing, but it is cowardly and compromises any sense of morality.

just as bad if successful. A person is destroyed.

Wouldn't want to have "destroyed" the fine men and patriots that had such hard jobs. That would have been sanctimonious.

emphasis on 'arguably'), but the impeachment and removal process is fundamentally political, not criminal. Thanks for that reminder from Civics 101.

By pardoning Nixon ahead of any trial, Ford removed any threat of criminal liability for the various offenses known as 'Watergate'. Some historians and political scientists argue that Ford's pardon of Nixon cost Ford the 1976 election.

extradite, regardless of whether we have signed the treaty.

I think that's the way to handle it. Have a press conference that spells it all out. "We don't believe in prosecuting former administrations as that will result in political prosecutions. But an indictment by the World Court removes the issue of political prosecution and would indicate that the global community believes a serious crime has been committed."

Boom.

You cannot open this door. Or else the US could be prosecuted on other crimes, too. Killing without trial by drones. Holding persons in Guantanamo without trial for - I don't know- ever?

is who is doing the targeting because civilians have been involved in that process. No one is going to prosecute people for a who is doing the targeting discrepancy.

who has not had a fair trial, or a trial at all? Just because your ever lying CIA considers that person worthy for beeing killed?

Don't you Americans have some rules about a fair trial and a jury of peers? But that's only for Americans, I guess, not for those other people abroad. They can be killed because you have the power and the means. You (not stevenleaser, the Americans) define what is right or wrong for the rest of the world and you accept or not what the rest of the world is thinking - you have the power.
You hail for freedom but only for yourself, you hail for free markets but bring on action against countries that trie to keep its own rules up.

But then you are whining when others say: Ami go home.

you, merely that I remain to be convinced.

Saying drone use is 'immoral' is a far cry from saying it is 'illegal.'

opinion of whether I think something is a crime. My opinion and yours is irrelevant. We can look up what international law actually says.

Creating straw men from my posts is a dishonest debate practice.

not authorized by Congress would arguably violate the Separations of Powers clause(s) of the Constitution. But I wish people arguing that drone use is in and of itself illegal would offer the relevant criminal statute(s). Methinks they're really saying that drone use should be illegal and substituting their wish for reality. But that's just a guess.

the republicans are stopping Obama from closing Guantanamo, how is he liable for that, it's another of Bush's crimes.

... it's Obama's fault?
I just said the USA are still committing crimes and could be held accountable for that if they accepted the World Court to prosecute some of them.

the world court.

I was thinking about the DOJ going after Bushco as in the OP

It would then also be necessary to go down the chain.

Then the problems of proof and the lawyers - face it Bushco would have dozens of highly paid ones - muddying up the waters until things are as confusing as hell - IMO we should chalk it up to the people supporting it due to 911 hysteria and move on. We the People aren't guiltless, we re-elected Dubya and were fine with what he was doing to "protect" us.

Last edited Thu Dec 11, 2014, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Bushie boy was never elected in the first place but, rather, installed after a bloodless coup by SCOTUS.

He may well have been elected in 2004 -- suspicions about Ohio notwithstanding -- but his presidency never had the same stamp of legitimacy as, say, Bill Clinton's or President Obama's.

Pedantry aside, I do take your point about how 'We the People' aren't guiltless. But, on a relative scale, the degree of our guilt pales before that of a Yoo or Bybee. Does that distinction make sense?

No doubt - no matter how hysterical We the People were, it was Bush's duty to adhere to the rule of law and explain, but no, he and his minions went out of their way to use that to exert as much power as possible.

That is what I don't forgive them for. They trotted out "911" as industriously as Giulani to justify the Patriot Act, and who knows what other lesser evils of laws.

What happened to your cute little picture in your sig?

You two fighting?

He is only of of two of the original members of President Obama's cabinet (the other is Tom Vilsack).

The best way to avoid war crimes prosecution is not to commit war crimes.

They should probably put a 'gallows' sculpture outside the Oval Office to remind future presidents they had better follow the law

If they did, there would be non-stop massive protests in every major American city until indictments were announced.

The "Banality of Evil", indeed.

I thought he was a better person. I was wrong.

There is PLENTY of torture-defense going on today.

However, that then sets the President above the law. Hello President Nixon

The biggest reason is that most voters, most politicians and most media are fine with the nebulous idea of torture that occurred years ago in far-off lands, and most people harbor the beliefs, deep down, that there are some who deserve to be tortured, and that torture is effective in accomplishing...something. Punishing evildoers, at least.

Now that Senator McCain has wagged a finger at it, it's old news that need not be revisited for years. The president knows that even if he cared enough about the issue, moving the needle even a bit would take every erg of his remaining energy and political capital, and there are much more popular concerns that he can more profitably pursue.

McCain's words leave little wiggle room, which is why they have already been forgotten by those in power.

That statute requires that the murder take place "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States."

I want him GONE. Period.

Flame on, people. I don't give a fuck anymore.

NO MORE GAMES.

Good point.

Against Torture which require the U.S. to investigate and prosecute credible allegations of torture by anyone in the U.S. government.

That treaty says nothing about drones.

Are you saying that for fear of possible future retaliation we will blow off our treaty obligations? If so, then why should the rest of the world continue to honor its treaty obligations towards us (thinking specifically of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)? Treaties, once ratified, enjoy the same force of law as the U.S. Constitution (per the Constitution itself).

First, the courts have already ruled that they have no jurisdiction over any crime that takes place outside of US Territory. That stemmed from the bounty hunters who would kidnap a wanted felon hiding in a non extradition nation. The courts ruled that they have no jurisdiction over those crimes, and worse, it didn't matter how the criminal arrived in the US, so long as he was there.

A long discussion on the issue is here. http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1333&context=facpub

So tortures that took place in black prisons in nations like Poland are under the jurisdiction of Poland, not the US. It could also be under the jurisdiction of the ICC, if we were a member of the International Criminal Court. We aren't, so we can't do anything about that now, even if President Obama signed the agreement, it would never be ratified by the Senate. No way to get sixty votes much less then 67 we would need.

So the courts would have no jurisdiction, and the ICC is not an option unless we're invaded and the invaders win and turn our criminals over to the ICC. That is also not going to happen.

So who has been prosecuted? Robert Lady. He was a CIA station chief in Italy who was convicted of Kidnapping and Torture. So far he's not served a day because we won't extradite him.

Conspiracy wouldn't work either, since those who plotted the kidnappings of those aforementioned wanted men did so in the US, and were never prosecuted either.

Now, unless you want to turn the Bush Co Cabal over to a foreign nation to be tried, and I caution you to consider that carefully. Because if we do that then Air Force One would have to deliver President Obama to some nation to face trial for the Drone Strikes and Special Forces/CIA Black Ops teams activities on January 20th 2017.

So if the torture takes place physically here, in the United States, then the US Courts could have Jurisdiction, unless such things are prohibited by the Patriot Act.

Oh, and Treaties have the force of Federal Law, not equal to or superseding Constitutional law. In other words if a Treaty is in violation of the Constitution, it is subservient to the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

Now a case could be brought before the UN Security Council saying that the United States should be sanctioned for violating the treaty. But since we can, and certainly would Veto the move then the world is powerless to hold us accountable through "legal channels". That does not mean we can't be punished in some way, or we won't pay, but it will be extralegal instead of strict legalities.

I suppose a case could be made that President Bush engaged in a conspiracy, but the Constitution only has one punishment outlined for a President who violates law while in office, and that is removal from office through Impeachment. It doesn't specifically prohibit further criminal charges, but that is a Constitutional Law question that would take years to work its way towards resolution. Any guesses on how that turns out?

simply kllling me. (Please see our discussion yesterday for a similar nudge

The U.N. Convention obligates the U.S. to investigate and, if warranted, charge and try its own torturers inside the U.S. judicial system. The U.N. Convention contains no exclusion based on where the torture occurred; if there are credible allegations that we tortured, the Convention requires us to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute the charges. That applies, whether the torture occurred in Ferguson, MO, in Poland or in Timbuktu. (U.S. codes 2340 and 2340A specifically extend CAT to territory outside the U.S. proper, torture within the U.S. proper already having been a violation of existing Federal statute.)

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/101750.pdf

Bottom line: if the U.S. blows off its obligations under the CAT, then why should any nation henceforth feel obliged to honor any treaty obligation that so much as inconveniences it? We can return to full-on gunboat diplomacy where the U.S. Navy still has a commanding lead. (I hear tell, though, that the Chinese and Russian navies are making giant strides to catch up.)

Being more inhumane than water boarding, then the invasion of Iraq was more inhumane and killed many more than the current drone program. Joe needs to say there is a Geneva convention of which the US is a part, the rules have been broken, as he said we have made mistakes and we have to correct them, but do not down play the torture. John McCain did a good job of speaking about torture, Scarborough needs to listen.

Bushco will have thousands of lawyers and the case would drag out forever, with a zillion issues created by said lawyers. It's really a losing proposition. It would never be a slam dunk case. If they were acquitted, we'd never hear the end of it. There'd be complex defenses regarding Executive powers, wartime, etc.

International Court of Justice to deliver accused subjects to its jurisdiction. (Note: the ICJ is a different judicial body than the ICC, to which we are not signatories, thanks to Bushie boy.)

that alone could involve years of legal briefs. Obama can't confer it single handedly.

pretty sure that the ICJ has jurisdiction. But IANAL, so will concede that the lawyers can make a lot of hay out of this.

Were I President, I'd be encouraging the ICJ sub rosa to issue an indictment and request for extradition\rendition. At that point, as POTUS, I would order the Marshalls to execute the ICJ warrant and deliver the accused to the ICJ and dare the Republicans to come after me. But then, I'm not POTUS (and probably a good thing too

name Reagan an 'unindicted co-conspirator' for Iran Contra -- would have almost certainly led to Reagan's impeachment and removal from office -- in his report to Congress, because Walsh recognized from his interview with Reagan at the WH that Reagan was already suffering symptoms of dementia. That always struck me as a fundamentally decent act of Walsh's, to spare the Reagan family and the nation the tawdry spectacle of trying someone incapable of assisting in his own defense (and thereby making Reagan's disability apparent to all). I really hate and despise that shithead Reagan but even that would not justify putting him through the wringer.

Bush, OTOH, strikes me as no different than your common garden-variety criminal, so the mental deficiency argument would not apply.

The real problem is he's both evil and unable to tell a lie without getting busted. What an ordeal his presidency was to all of us who couldn't get a hearing on all his obvious lies because the Repubs believe in invisible silk suits.

"If you can be prosecuted for torturing suspected terrorists..."

Seems to me prosecution would require President Obama have perfectly clean hands. I haven't seen anyone raise that issue yet.

torturers of the Bush-Cheney Junta, but on his second day in office, President Obama issued an Executive Order banning the use of torture henceforth by any agent of the U.S. government. (Don't have the specific links ready at hand, but they are easily searchable.) Thus, any torture occurring after that EO would have to be either by rogue agents of the U.S. actiing in direct contravention of a Presidential EO or, more nefariously, by Obama''s covert instructions to violate and subvert his own public EO. I have seen no allegations by anyone that the latter happened. There will always be allegations of 'secret government' rogues who operate outside of, or in parallel to, the constitutional operation of the government.

The force-feeding of hunger striking detainees at Guantanomo is a 'contested terrain,' with human rights organizations calling the practice 'torture' but an equally valid argument that doing so advances the value of protecting life on the opposite side.

or indeed everyone from the Attorney General on down - to have "clean hands." There's no body of law allowing someone to have a conviction overturned because they hint that someone in the Justice Department might have committed a crime once.

What goes around, comes around.

Our government and any complicit foreign governments would do almost anything to prevent this from happening.