Would it have been a good time to prosecute Bush/Cheney while we had the worst economy in 80 years?

I'm all for having justice being taken on Bush and Cheney for their crimes, which are many. It will happen if only by how history will judge them in the future.

But could you actually imagine the President acting with Congress and the Senate spending nearly all their time beginning prosecution proceedings against Bush and Cheney while the economy was in a tailspin with the banking industry tumbling and affecting the global economy at the same time?

While it's fun to play along with some that it should have been the first thing Obama should have done after he was sworn in, anyone with a reasonable sense of reality knows that it never would have happened.

Call me a cheerleader. Unrec the thread.

Who cares.

The point is that it would have been as reckless as Bush and Cheney were to have tried to indict them as a first priority while just about everything else was falling down. You can also imagine how the mainstream media would not have complied with the efforts as well.

Plus, we were told that the Dems can walk and chew gum at the same time. It wasn't and isn't an either/or proposition.

she could do to hold together the coalition she had for passing the stimulus and the health bill. Any attempt at impeachment would have interfered.

And the Republicans would have filibustered any attempt to find him guilty in the Senate. What would have been the point of another impeachment that failed to reach a conviction in the Senate?

Just let history judge them. For them, it's enough they are out of power. That's a big punishment for them.

and it would establish a pattern. Every President would end up getting impeached by the other party in power in the House.

their actions. We turned our backs as they murdered and killed tens of thousands of children. Just like with the Iran-Contra criminals, they are not gone. They will be back.

Please cite the statutes they are to be tried under. This vague cry of "war crimes" is not going to cut it.

If your lawyer told you that you did not have a case, you would just blame the lawyer, right?

You have no concept of the law.

Starting a war for the purpose of stealing money is
Invading a sovereign nation under false pretences is
Attempting to overthrow the government of Iran...
NSA warrantless surveillance...
Signing statements...
Ignoring Congressional subpoenas...
Cheating - 2004 elections...

and on...and on...and on...

governments do multitask

I may not be a genius like you think you are, but THEY BROKE LAWS. And your continued support of those despicable people is very strange to me.

that law, as soon as elections were over. Doing that didn't help Melosovic(sp?) why should they be above a law they themselves created just because they feel like it?

nt

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

for fuck's sake, this is ridiculous.

Isn't it called Godwin's Law?

Come up with something substantive rather than continuing this naive bullshit.

Explain to Holder (since you know better than he) what the law is and what the evidence is.

And deal with the issues of defenses. Do you really think any court anywhere will not let Bushco make a defense? Do you really think they have nothing to hang onto and that they could not make it last for years? You would be screaming about how long it takes if it started anyway.

And we're still trying to get out of the mess they created! Like we have the time and money to worry about them right now.

Not to mention the attention they'd get from a sympathetic media. 24/7 about how high the unemployment rate is now while Obama is worrying about Bushco. And you'd be joining in that barrage.

you may want to hide your eyes and cover your ears..go right ahead..

I have no illusions to what I am seeing repeated daily here in the good ole USof A!

And some people around here, at DU, that are calling themselves Democrats ..while hiding under the cover of darkness and propaganda ..are not just part of the problem..they are the problem.

Who is to be charged, under what statutes, and that's just for starters?

be nice back, but they have no morals and will continue their evil ways. They prosecuted Clinton for a bj, yet some here want to let them go for killing hundreds of thousands, ruining a country and torture. I want them punished for what they did. They ruined our country, our Democracy. And they are still out there and will be back in force in 2012.

ON EDIT: Also would have helped the news folks / increased employment opportunities there (who would have run with the story 24/7), increased the chatter/public discussion on AMERICAN VALUES and the price of the abuse of power for future generations, and allowed Obama to actually get things done whilst the Republicans were busy paying attention to the "frontal attack on their Party" while the elected (Obama) administration accomplished the rest of their stated campaign goals.

This was an opportunity wasted, and I for one, believe at the very least a *MORAL* corruption / backroom deal is the reason why.

If Obama had done what Bush and Cheney did, I'd be all for prosecuting him for War Crimes, etc. as well. This isn't a "party" issue; its about what is acceptable behavior from those in TEMPORARY leadership roles in our government.

Our taxes are not their private bank accounts. Our armed forces are not a private mercenary service. Our federal watchdogs on health / safety / food / labor / education / etc. aren't supposed to be toothless rubber stamping agencies.

And if doing the right thing would have provided political cover for "the rest of the American agenda" (which is what competent politicians should have managed), then even better.

End Lecture.

And I would love to know exactly what statutes are to be used, and what the evidence is.

Bushco lawyers would bog it down and all of the attention would go to Bush and Cheney. They'd be in the headlines again.

and if they were acquitted it would validate them.

no one has to follow the laws, let's have a free for all.

And in fact there are times when prosecutors don't pursue a charge, because there is not enough evidence.

don't be purposely dense.

The ruling class think they are above the law and you seem to agree.

Not every case is brought. Ask any prosecutor.

I recall the boast of vincent Bugliosi that he had a 100% conviction record. Because prosecutors can decide what cases they will bring. If they don't have enough evidence, in their experience, they don't bring the case. They go for one they CAN prove.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I am surprised at the naivete of these posts. Where there is evidence a prosecutor will bring a case.

What are the statutes to be used? Please cite them. "War crimes" is not a particular law. Please explain how the evidence will be presented.

Please also indicate some of the issues Bushco lawyers will use and present the legal arguments for them.

That will take years.

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

call the police or clean up the house first? As long as we dont prosecute, the criminals will continue to run this country. They destroyed the economy and can and will again.

crime. FFS. That's obvious.

a majority and subpoena power. You concentrate initially on-things that common people would understand, like the fucking plane loads of money that disappeared from Iraq, the contract fraud and the money gouging by Halliburton, etc, and you point out how much of this is economic crime that helped lead to the collapse of our economy.

You then proceed to real investigations of the Wall Street crime, again, framing it simply for common people to understand, that their economy was fucked by people both inside and outside the government.

Save the war crime investigations -- that you find so fucking trivial -- until the people have seen how their economy was looted -- then show them how their nation soul was also raped. Save the nerdy constitutional abuses that you likely also find trivial now that Obama is in charge, for the end.

FFS, this makes ordinary run of the mill crime look benign, as it is leading us down the road to national ruin.

But don't worry, none of this will ever be answered for, so rest assured all will be well, until the GOP starts investigating your guy ina few months.

and then some. This is all very vague. Who is to be charged and under what statutes, just for a start? That will keep you busy for the next 3.4 years.

overnight? Remember, "The President can't fix everything in six months(18 months, two years, etc)"!

Again, don't worry about it now, until they start fucking with your guy soon enough.

But I guess you're ok with that.

nt

patriarch of the Bush Crime Family. That's the ticket.

nasty guy, the more I read of Raygun

It was always a tricky situation. I doubt Obama came into office wanting to be bogged down by it but then again, it pisses me and a lot of people off that Bush and Cheney have walked away totally unscathed. At least Cheney looks near death. About the only person's death I will ever celebrate.

no statue of limitations on murder.

Should we NOT prosecute any murderers according to your scenerio and the economy?

That is utter bullshit!

If that was the case ..Hitler should still be alive and never hunted down! What do you think the Economy was like during and right after WWII ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

And WTF does the economy have to do with War Crimes?????????????????????????????????????


Geesh..the dumb keep trying to find others, just as dumb, to agree with them about crimes against humanity!

I think he made a deal and it was a mistake. We are in war and most Americans are in denial. The resources of the middle class are being stolen by the ruling class. Pres Obama can only do so much. But the Bush family will be back with a vengeance. Does anyone think that Karl Rove hasnt been busy?

stop making excuses for him.
He is the most powerful man in the world..if he wanted this shit stopped he had the biggest mandate and approval of almost any president in my 58 year lifetime!

Obama is doing exactly what he wants to do and for who he wants to do it for!

Some of us had no illusions about who and what Obama is ...and who he is owned by.

Others are only coming to that realization!

Day late and a dollar short.

A "mandate" as you call it, is completely meaningless in an oligarchy. Bush didnt get a mandate, didnt even get elected yet did terrible damage to the world and America. If Pres Obama has a "bully pulpit" he isnt using it, with capitulation after capitulation to the 'cons.

If there was a good chance of removing him from office, it would have been good to try (I don't think there was). If it would just have been to make the point, they had better things to do.

If our congress can find nothing..then they don't belong in congress!

Just send them to another democratic country ..without US interference..no presidential interference , no diplomatic interference..and see how quickly they can prosecute Bush and Cheney and Rummy for war crimes..

and don't say there is no precedence...we did it to Melosovich..not so very long ago..

and after all ..it was Bush and Cheney who renditioned people to foreign countries to be tortured...and today Obama continues this practice...why can they not be sent to the Hague?

I could see charging for ordering the waterboarding of detainees; what's the strategy you would use to prosecute?

I was in Germany when he went on TV and said that..it was on the front cover of the Newspapers in Berlin when I was there and when I went on to Prague..it was also on the front pages of their papers.

So tell me ..when did torture become legal?????????????

Bush nor Cheney nor Rummy would stand a snow balls chance in hell of staying out of prison for life ..if they were turned over to one of our Allies ..without US interference!

Their judicial systems would have no problem finding the proof of war crimes .... which the so called leaders in our country don't have the ficking guts to do ...or even try!

But then the status of waterboarding as torture was always the legal point in question. What's your legal strategy for proving it is?

that is in your dreams.

It makes me sick to my stomach to think I even have to write that out..that is how sick this nation of mine has become and how sick her people are today!

Wow it makes me wretch to have to even point that out.

And I agree with you it's torture. Now, how would you prove that to a jury? (As I read this you're talking about prosecuting Bush, Yoo, etc. now rather than conducting an impeachment 3 or 4 years ago.) What's the statute?

murderers they are..with no accountability and no prosecutions..or anything..lets just let all fucking murderers walk around free..with no accountabilty..because we might not be able to convict them!!

Thats the ticket.

Look..I have been a juror 6 times ..believe me..if someone committed murder..and is guilty ..they can still get off...But not without a fucking day in court! And not without a jury of their peers deciding their innocence or guilt.

So are you saying..we should not try to hold them accountable..because that is exactly what is going on..and if Joe Schmo can go to trial for murder ..so can Bush and Cheney!

Will there be a conviction every time for Joe Schmo?? No..But at least the " rule of law " will have been fullfilled and everything within our laws will have been exhausted.

Bush , Cheney , and Rummy deserve no less!..and with each passing day that Obama goes along with all these crimes..he will deserve no less either!

Our laws are not just for Joe Schmo..they are for everyone.

Bush and Cheney and Rummy committed war crimes..they must be held accountable..or we are all accessories to their crimes.

And I'm asking what instrument you would want to use. Not to mention what jurisdiction you would charge him under. The DC District court? (This is an odd docket to begin with because it's actually a Federal court but it has responsibility for adjudicating DC criminal laws because of DC's colonial status.)

So in fact, let's just start with the basics: what jurisdiction's grand jury would you have indict Bush, and on what charge?

It's easy to play the parlor talk chest-beating hyperbole on the issue of prosecuting Bush/Cheney, but when the adults ask exactly how you'd go about it in a court of law, you get nothing but bumperstickerisms and other torpor.

was a crime and people were convicted for doing it. OK? Let's just start there.

black and white. Just for starters, real life prosecutors do not bring every single case they could. They don't waste resources on cases unless they have a good shot at proving them. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is not a walk in the park.

admin with.

There absolutely was NOT and IS NOT. Obama made it very clear that he wanted to look forward not back. He freaking KNOWS it's torture and DOES NOT CARE.

'Mr. Obama has in the past condemned waterboarding, and he was explicit in the interview that he regarded the use of the technique, in which a subject is made to believe that he is drowning, as torture, prohibited by statute. And the president-elect said he disagreed with Vice President Dick Cheney, who has defended the practice.

“Vice President Cheney, I think, continues to defend what he calls extraordinary measures or procedures when it comes to interrogations,” Mr. Obama said, “and from my view, waterboarding is torture.” '

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12inquire.html

Vincent Bugliosi discussed at length the type of charges he'd bring against Jr. and Cheney if he were the prosecutor. I'm certainly not very well versed in law but these are just a couple of things that could be considered.

Bugliosi's case as I remember it was charging him with 3000+ counts of murder for the soldiers killed in Iraq; I think there are some severe Constitutional problems with that charge, but then he's a veteran prosecutor and I'm not.

As far as the WWII thing, I am sort of familiar with that: waterboarding was listed among several "acts of torture" ordered by Japanese officers. And, yes, I agree that's a start, but it's a long way from there to a black-letter definition that will stand up to a trial.

Answer: it should.

You simply do not have enough breadth of knowledge to even imagine the issues that will arise.

Further, the people of this country will not be behind it. At this level, that is necessary in order to undertake such a thing.

If the other countries can do it so easily, let them try it. It'll be even tougher for them, but if that's how they want to spend their energies, let them.

It's not a matter of "guts." If you wanted to immigrate to one of those wonderful countries and their lawyers told you that you did not qualify under their laws, would that be "gutless?" If I told you that you had to obey a court order you didn't want to obey, would that mean I was "gutless?" IOW, can you handle any legal reality that does not comport with what you want?

our government? Holder works for me and should be using "his breadth of knowledge" to figure out a way to prosecute the WAR CRIMINALS that you apparently want to give a free ride. History wont punish them. The history books will be written in Texas and praise the Bush Organization murders.

The line has to be drawn. We must establish the rule of law or die trying. A few economic bread crumbs cant buy me off.

"WAR CRIMES" is not a crime. Murder is a crime. What is the crime you want to charge him with, and in what jurisdiction?

think I know of any crimes they committed? I wont play your silly game, but would like to know why you would defend these criminals?

And I'm wondering what theory you would want to use.

Even more I'm curious what jurisdiction people are thinking about? Do they want to charge them with Federal or local crimes? What's the statute you want to use?

operative.

The whole line of questioning is a lame trip up anyway. We know fucking Ronald Reagan prosecuted a sheriff for using the form of torture. We know we have prosecuted people for ordering its use on our soldiers but they are demanding statutes as a pretense that no crime occurred.

Hell, just in the last month or two some moran was arrested for waterboarding his wife or girlfriend.

It is assault and it is torture. It is a fucking human rights violation. It is a civil rights violation.

The fuckers trying to defend this are the sort to dig their own graves while calling for others being ordered to not to make trouble.

I thought about wasting my Sunday evening digging out statutes used in past prosecutions but I remembered that the goalposts are on fucking rollers and they would simply move on to some other shitty excuse to render justice moot.

On this, I suspect they know well how wrong they are. How hard is it to connect the dots from Watergate to Iran/Contra to Iraq and torture with all kinds of shenanigans before, between, during, and after.

Each time these criminals are allowed to get off or with a wag of the finger type deal they come back and do much worse along with their intellectual spawn.

They are full of shit and fawning pawns of the wealth and the powerful.

the point where you realize it may not be quite as easy as you think it is.

quit just demanding that they be prosecuted for "war crimes" as if it is that simple! Please lay out the case.

Since you're so much better at it than Holder, help him out! As you say, the rule of law is at stake!

!!!!!!!!! ALL CAPS !!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

We need unity and the Republicans will never surrender their losing causes until somemone defeats them on the public opinion battlefront.

Look at it this way. We didn't go after them, they won too many seats in the last election and we're even further away from turning this economy around than ever before.

Although I think that we all pretty much agree that if any single administration deserved to be given the kind of *treatment* that Clinton was undeservedly given while he was in office (and then some), it would be the Bush (mis-)administration, however, practically speaking, investigating/prosecuting Bushco was not what Obama and the Democrats ran on in 2008 and (most) people didn't elect President Obama and the Democrats to do it and, given the choice between saving the economy from falling off a cliff (which is where we actually were back then) and addressing other important matters such as HCR, financial reform first 1-2 years and investigating the previous (mis-)administration (however well deserved), I think that they ultimately made the right choice in terms of priorities IMHO.

Sorry I see no difference except justice was served in one instance.

Maybe it would excite the populace and get the country moving again

:bounce:

Are these people incapable of multitasking?

Besides Bush & Cheney are out of office it would not have been the responsibility of Congress or the president to investigate or prosecute.

And, as I understand, the DOJ has managed to continue to investigate all sorts of crimes despite the bad economy.

I see your point. After all, we all like ice cream.

What other reasonable agenda items must be put off until conditions are just so? I mean, is that what the delay is all about?

I know I'll sleep better tonight.

(Irony alert for the perpetually clueless.)

...simply delusional.

None of you made any level of an intelligent response. It was all childish chest-beating. Yeah, that's the low hanging fruit approach.

Be so bold as to illustrate EXACTLY how Obama would have gotten Congress and the Senate to try to put criminal charges on Bush and Cheney while the banking industry was in a tailspin, while unemployment was rising and when Obama needed to pass some semblance of healthcare reform among other things.

You are either politically naive, politically deaf or just desperate to out-asshole the other guy.

how much more clear can that be made for you?

Lay it out. Not parlor talk chest beating laden with bumper sticker hyperbole... Show me the steps how Obama would have done it while the economy was imploding.

Make me fucking laugh my ass off.

I just said quite clearly HE COULD HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF THE FUCKING WAY and let others do it.
Or do you think the documents that showed them leaning on Spain to drop prosecutions were forgeries?

Otherwise I assume you have no idea what you're talking about.

The first thing out of the box would be for Obama to have Holder begin prosecutions on Bush? What's the charge? Where would the court case be held? "War crimes" is not a "crime".

Let's see your timeline.

detail demands, how about not & use precedent instead?

I ask a simple question about just how Obama was going to try to stop a tumbling economy and banking industry (among other disasters) all while having the Justice Department indict Bush/Cheney at the same time for "war crimes".

I know how bad Bush/Cheney were. I also have a reasonable semblance of reality that it was never going to happen after 2006.

A simple realistic timeline is all I ask from the chest-beaters... and I get nothing but the usual claptrap.

your demands. What's this hubub about some kind of timeline? All I get from you is nitpicking, petty, detailistic demands, not a real stance except "let's all make nice"........"we can't do such a thing"..........blah blah

Listen.

Bush is a crook. A slimebag. A war criminal. Cheney is a treasonous jackass and even worse than Bush.

I get it.

But...

The whole point of this OP was to illustrate that there is no way Obama could have pulled off having Bush/Cheney indicted WHILE trying to stop the madness with the economy, etc. when he became president. The mainstream media would have fully drummed against it. Hate radio would have stopped it. Democrats would even have stopped it.

If you really, really, really think it was going to happen or even had a monkey's chance in hell of happening, you are either very naive or politically unaware of how it all works.

Yes, it sucks. And no, it will never happen.

Only history will make sure Bush and Cheney are seen as careless, corrupt leaders at this point. No one in DC had the stomach to do anything in 2006, when it was all very evident what happened.

George Bush and Dick Cheney are criminals. They need to be prosecuted for their war crimes. End of story.

Of course they should have been prosecuted... IN 2006!

Show me how Obama would have had the votes to continue with prosecuting Bush and Cheney when the economy is splintering and the banking industry was in a freefall collapse.

Define the strategy and show how the stock market as well as global markets would not have been affected. Define how the mainstream media would have gone along for the ride.

I bet you have no realistic idea how it would have been done under the circumstances.

It would have felt great to all those people who seldom or hardly ever vote, but DID in '08.

.... when the economy was tumbling and Wall Street was in a near state of collapse...

Yeah, it would have lifted the nation's spirits... I was looking for the sarcasm emoticon.

the same person we needed to fix the economy, of course.

on revenge when there are much more important issues to be addressed first--
unemployment
deficits
gitmo
afghanistan
al qaeda

nt

law is law

Lets prosecute those evil bastards first and foremost!!!!

Some Liberals give the Democratic Party such a bad name. Lol I now understand how some moderate republicans feel about the tea party.