Would it have been a good time to prosecute Bush/Cheney while we had the worst e

[Carl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x540980

zulchzulu  (1000+ posts)          Fri Dec-03-10 08:17 AM
Original message
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.

rhett o rick  (1000+ posts)          Fri Dec-03-10 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. They need to be tried for war crimes as soon as possible. History will judge us because we condoned
   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.

treestar  (1000+ posts)          Fri Dec-03-10 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #8
32. "War crimes" is not sufficient to put on an indictment
   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.

Ruh roh

hett o rick  (1000+ posts)          Sat Dec-04-10 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #32
79. So you do "have a concept of the law"? And you claim the Bush Organization didnt break any laws?
   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.

rhett o rick  (1000+ posts)          Fri Dec-03-10 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. Agree. We have nothing w/o the rule of law. Some here think that if we are nice to them, they will
   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.

The rented wreck primitive is working himself into a tizzy.

treestar  (1000+ posts)          Fri Dec-03-10 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #17
30. What statutes should be used and how will the evidence be presented?
   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.

You know you execute now and have the trial later dude.

rhett o rick  (1000+ posts)          Fri Dec-03-10 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #44
56. Again, it's too hard to do the right thing?? Unless we put them away they will strike again.
   But I guess you're ok with that.

rhett o rick  (1000+ posts)          Fri Dec-03-10 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #34
55. Why do you defend the war criminals? nm

Recursion (1000+ posts)        Fri Dec-03-10 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
19. Meh. What charges could Congress make a case for?
   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.

flyarm  (1000+ posts)          Fri Dec-03-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. STOP THE CRAP PLEASE!!!!!!!!! enough bullshit..just stop the lies and bullshit!
   Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 10:09 AM by flyarm
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?

flyarm  (1000+ posts)          Fri Dec-03-10 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. I guess you missed it when Bush said on National TV..hell yes I ordered torture!
   Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 10:15 AM by flyarm
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!

Recursion (1000+ posts)        Fri Dec-03-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. I remember he said on TV that he ordered the waterboarding of KSM
   But then the status of waterboarding as torture was always the legal point in question. What's your legal strategy for proving it is?

flyarm  (1000+ posts)          Fri Dec-03-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. there was never any" legal point in question" about Waterboarding being torture,.
   Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 10:44 AM by flyarm
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.

Recursion (1000+ posts)        Fri Dec-03-10 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. Well, retching or not, that's what you would have to prove
   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?

flyarm  (1000+ posts)          Fri Dec-03-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #31
39. well LETS JUST NOT TRY.. yeah ..thats the ticket..lets just allow them to walk free being the
   Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 10:53 AM by flyarm
murderers they are..with no accountability and no prosecutions..or anything..lets just let all ****ing 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 ****ing 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.

rhett o rick  (1000+ posts)          Sat Dec-04-10 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #37
64. "You simply do not have enough breath of knowledge..." In other words we are too stupid to question
   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.

Recursion (1000+ posts)        Sat Dec-04-10 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #64
67. What crime, specifically, do you want to charge him with?
   "WAR CRIMES" is not a crime. Murder is a crime. What is the crime you want to charge him with, and in what jurisdiction?

rhett o rick  (1000+ posts)          Sat Dec-04-10 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #67
78. Are you asking that because you dont think they committed any crimes or because you dont
   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?

You just lost.

treestar  (1000+ posts)          Fri Dec-03-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #21
35. Usually being this emotional about something means you are at
   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
   

 

zulchzulu  (1000+ posts)          Sat Dec-04-10 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
73. The ones acting like Obama should have prosecuted Bush when he got in power are...
   ...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.

Welcome to the DUmp.

annabanana  (1000+ posts)          Sat Dec-04-10 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
76. It would have lifted the nation's spirits.
   It would have felt great to all those people who seldom or hardly ever vote, but DID in '08.

Stupid like that should be a prosecutable offense by itself.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Ol' treestar is doing pretty well at illuminating their plan:

Step 1:  J'accuse!
Step 2:  Magic!
Step 3:  BFEE goes to jail forever!

 

[thundley4]

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?

Why isn't Obama being impeached for this?

[franksolich]

You know, given how the Dems in Congress since 2007 and the Big Zero in the White House since 2009 have ****ed up things--the economy, foreign relations, the war for the liberation of Afghanistan--maybe it would've been better if they'd concentrated on persecuting the previous administration instead.

It would have done less harm to the economy, foreign relations, and wartime strategy, and provided all of us with a great deal of amusement.

[thundley4]

You know, given how the Dems in Congress since 2007 and the Big Zero in the White House since 2009 have ****ed up things--the economy, foreign relations, the war for the liberation of Afghanistan--maybe it would've been better if they'd concentrated on persecuting the previous administration instead.

It would have done less harm to the economy, foreign relations, and wartime strategy, and provided all of us with a great deal of amusement.

And there likely would have been a bigger tsunami to wash away the filthy Dims this past November.

[franksolich]

And there likely would have been a bigger tsunami to wash away the filthy Dims this past November.

But I have no doubt George Bush and Richard Cheney could have run circles around them while standing on their heads and whistling "Dixie" with one hand tied behind their backs, and thus the "providing amusement" part.

[ColonialMarine0431]

*sigh*

Here we go again...

[LC EFA]

zulchzulu  (1000+ posts)          Fri Dec-03-10 08:17 AM
Original message
...

Who cares.

...

Nobody.

Bask in it loser.