90 replies to this topic

[wagtail]

So most people are prepared to move on?  I understand it, and I think I was kind of expecting it.

As an outside observer, I think it compromises Obama's rhetoric on seeking to improve the reputation of the USA internationally.  It's suggests that forever and always the USA can do as it pleases, because obviously an administration is not going to investigate itself, and the people do not see such an investigation as a priority of an incoming government, so governments need never be held accountable?  

Eric, we've discussed the issue of the death penalty a few times and you've raised the issue of justice as a deterrant.  how do you reconcile that with your suggestion that not prosecuting is not the same as forgetting?  It seems very contradictory...you would seek the ultimate punishment of death for an individual who takes anothers life, but your not interested in even investigating the notion that your goverment, the most powerful government in the world, could have commited war crimes?  and you offer examples of others that may have done the same, as a justification for your ambivalence?  

To be honest I'm surprised there isn't a Republican voter or two in here saying, "yep, bring it on..the Bush administration should be investigated, because I believe Bush/Cheney et al will be vindicated."

[Driver Eight]

wagtail said:

As an outside observer, I think it compromises Obama's rhetoric on seeking to improve the reputation of the USA internationally.  It's suggests that forever and always the USA can do as it pleases, because obviously an administration is not going to investigate itself, and the people do not see such an investigation as a priority of an incoming government, so governments need never be held accountable?

Bingo. Completely agreed. Unaccountable power is a big part of what causes abuses like what the Bushies perpetrated. It is a very dangerous thing with a government as big and powerful as is ours. It is not just about ladeling out favors to friends. It's about killing thousands of people, torturing hundreds of others and resting secure that you're untouchable.

Why not just have a monarchy? Most kings and queens are more accountable.

Edited by Christratton2007, 20 January 2009 - 06:49 AM.

[Hezalin]

I would love it if the Bush administration, or even Cheney and Bush himself were investigatd and held accountable, but does anyone eactually think they would be. Someone like a  mere pee-on scapegoat sure, but Bush in jail? It would never happen, there is still an air of omnipotency we give the Oval office and Nixon himself said it, when the presdient of the US does it, it isn't illegal. We're screwed in that sense, so move on, sent his ass abck to Crawford, and hopefully a future generation will scour his face off history.

[remring]

wagtail said:

So most people are prepared to move on?  I understand it, and I think I was kind of expecting it.

As an outside observer, I think it compromises Obama's rhetoric on seeking to improve the reputation of the USA internationally.  It's suggests that forever and always the USA can do as it pleases, because obviously an administration is not going to investigate itself, and the people do not see such an investigation as a priority of an incoming government, so governments need never be held accountable?  

Eric, we've discussed the issue of the death penalty a few times and you've raised the issue of justice as a deterrant.  how do you reconcile that with your suggestion that not prosecuting is not the same as forgetting?  It seems very contradictory...you would seek the ultimate punishment of death for an individual who takes anothers life, but your not interested in even investigating the notion that your goverment, the most powerful government in the world, could have commited war crimes?  and you offer examples of others that may have done the same, as a justification for your ambivalence?  

To be honest I'm surprised there isn't a Republican voter or two in here saying, "yep, bring it on..the Bush administration should be investigated, because I believe Bush/Cheney et al will be vindicated."

To be honest, I am having a difficult time to respond to this post for several reasons.

1) I never said anything about "Investigating". "Investigating" is much different than "Prosecuting".

2) The comments that you made in regards to the death penalty are very limiting to a broader scope argument that I have about the death penalty that includes many other issues besides deterrant.

What I am afraid of in regards to the issue of "War Crimes" specifically is whether or not the Bush Administration acted "Maliciously" in regards to the issue of torture, whether their crimes become an issue of legal interpretation vs. malicious acts intended to harm and maim.

For example, if the Obama Administration investigates these cases of torture and finds that the Bush Administration had consulted legally of whether waterboarding was a form of "torture" and they were told that it was and they did it anyhow, then that would be malicious. If they were told that it was not torture and they did it anyhow then what do you do then?

Put Bush and Cheney behind bars for bad advice?

What is their defense? They were there to protect America from terrorism, and the end result is martyrdom. If the following happens it is a witch hunt which does not aid our country nor the world.

Lastly, what are the ramifications of putting a president or vice-president behind bars? Are we doing so out of vengeance? The tone of the speech that Obama gave today was not of putting people behind bars but turning a page and changing the way that America does business and that means using diplomacy.

[remring]

Christratton2007 said:

I just disagree. We didn't waterboard or otherwise torture for a good 55 years after WWII. That's a pretty strong precedent. Then along came Cheney and his band of thugs and his enabling, incompetent bumbler of a president, and the precedent goes out the window.
  

I am not sure where you are getting your information from but there are many cases since then which could account for the US involvement in many situations of torture over the years. Vietnam and Chile come to mind immediately.

[OldManRay]

remring said:

I am not sure where you are getting your information from but there are many cases since then which could account for the US involvement in many situations of torture over the years. Vietnam and Chile come to mind immediately.

Right.  To much of the world, GWB and co were not an aberration, but part of a continuum of odious behaviour by the US government abroad.  I'm hoping for not just a change from the last 8 years, but the last 55 years at least.

[Tronyé]

OldManRay said:

Right.  To much of the world, GWB and co were not an aberration, but part of a continuum of odious behaviour by the US government abroad.  I'm hoping for not just a change from the last 8 years, but the last 55 years at least.

I have a hard time imagining this happen.  I hardly doubt anything will change.

[capi]

I'm actually very surprised that few of the Americans here feel it is worthwhile investigating the Bush administration.  I do understand the relief of finally being rid of Bush and wanting to move on, but governments have to be accountable for their actions.  To ignore the possibility of wrong doing, by refusing to even investigate, is to accept/agree that government officials really are above the law.  

Ffs, Clinton had to face the music for lying about an affair which, in the grand scheme of things, seems pretty inconsequential compared to the Bush admin's lies and possible crimes.  

The US has a responsibility, not just to their own people, but also to the international community who have been harmed by the actions of Bush and his admin.  The US has expected other countries to investigate and prosecute their leaders so I think Americans should expect no more or less for themselves.  It's all very well to say that people won't forget but I doubt if we even know much of what went on, so unless there is an investigation then we're letting people off the hook without even bothering to find out what they've done.

[wagtail]

remring said:

To be honest, I am having a difficult time to respond to this post for several reasons.

1) I never said anything about "Investigating". "Investigating" is much different than "Prosecuting".

Ok, well you chose to use the word 'prosecuting', when the article I quoted, along with my initial question, very clearly make reference to an investigation...I assumed you used the word prosecution because you believed an investigation would lead to a prosecution.  So, my mistake if I misinterpreted that, I don't know why you used the word prosecution.

So, I'll re-ask the question...do you think there should be an investigation?

remring said:

What I am afraid of in regards to the issue of "War Crimes" specifically is whether or not the Bush Administration acted "Maliciously" in regards to the issue of torture, whether their crimes become an issue of legal interpretation vs. malicious acts intended to harm and maim.

For example, if the Obama Administration investigates these cases of torture and finds that the Bush Administration had consulted legally of whether waterboarding was a form of "torture" and they were told that it was and they did it anyhow, then that would be malicious. If they were told that it was not torture and they did it anyhow then what do you do then?

Put Bush and Cheney behind bars for bad advice?

What is their defense? They were there to protect America from terrorism, and the end result is martyrdom. If the following happens it is a witch hunt which does not aid our country nor the world.

Lastly, what are the ramifications of putting a president or vice-president behind bars? Are we doing so out of vengeance? The tone of the speech that Obama gave today was not of putting people behind bars but turning a page and changing the way that America does business and that means using diplomacy.

Here again you are concerned with the results and not the importance of the process .  We are talking about an investigation, it's not a witchhunt, it's not vengeance. It is the simply the pursuit of the truth.

BTW: does anyone know....does Obama need to seek an investigation?  How does it work?  I would have thought it should be a process that doesn't necessarily need his blessing, and need not be political - I think that is also what Chris has suggested is the case. That's why I asked the question, to get an idea about how US citizens felt about notions of accountability and justice re: their governments.  You keep talking about the lack of accountablity in the US throughout history, like it's some kind of justification for inaction,  I guess maybe I interpreted the CHANGE thing a little differently to you.

[remring]

wagtail said:

Ok, well you chose to use the word 'prosecuting', when the article I quoted, along with my initial question, very clearly make reference to an investigation...I assumed you used the word prosecution because you believed an investigation would lead to a prosecution.  So, my mistake if I misinterpreted that, I don't know why you used the word prosecution.

So, I'll re-ask the question...do you think there should be an investigation?

Here again you are concerned with the results and not the importance of the process .  We are talking about an investigation, it's not a witchhunt, it's not vengeance. It is the simply the pursuit of the truth.

Framing this as the "Crimes of the Bush Administration" is a witchhunt.

Investigations are going to take place. I think that is a given. For example, if they are going close Guantanamo Bay what are they going to do with the prisoners that are there? If they try them in a court of law, Eric Holder, who will be the next Attorney General is going to have to have some background into how each of these criminals were treated.

Even now, Obama is enacting "Change that We Can Believe In" . . . see below. . .

http://www.huffingto...p_n_159557.html

I fear in many respects that there is an element of whatever I am writing here there will be a "Gotcha" moment which is why I am choosing my words carefully because the issue is not black and white and more "Tone" than anything. We need to be careful that we do not turn the next 4 years into a legal fight over the acts of the previous 4 years. We have already had 8 years of the Bushes in the White House and we do not need 12.

[Driver Eight]

remring said:

I am not sure where you are getting your information from but there are many cases since then which could account for the US involvement in many situations of torture over the years. Vietnam and Chile come to mind immediately.

Eric:

The Nixon Admin's crimes in Vietnam and Chile, such as they may be (I don't know much about them), tend to support my point that Republican admins flout international and US legal strictures at will. Do you deny this? Do you think it merits punishment if laws were violated?

Also, do you just want to give Cheney and Bush a blank check? Do you believe Cheney didn't cook the books on WMD? Do you buy that he couldn't get whatever "legal advice" he wanted from John Yoo? If the lawyer gives a sham interpretation of the law, you're not willing to buy that Cheney was proceding in good faith on lawyer's advice, are you? Didn't work for the Enron criminals - why should it work for Cheney?

I think jail time for Cheney would send a powerful signal that outlaws at all levels are suject to prosecution and that crimes of the president and VP are subject to punishment.

That is change I can believe in.

PS: Such investigations and prosecutions would be labeled as vengeance by hardcore Republicans. Are these the people you listen to in arriving at matters of criminal law, Eric? It is not vengeance to enforce the law. It is upholding, in this case, deeply held moral and ethical principles codified as law. Do you deny that there's a difference?

Edited by Christratton2007, 22 January 2009 - 08:14 PM.
spelling, grammar

[remring]

Christratton2007 said:

Eric:

The Nixon Admin's crimes in Vietnam and Chile, such as they may be (I don't know much about them), tend to support my point that Republican admins flout international and US legal strictures at will. Do you deny this? Do you think it merits punishment if laws were violated?

Also, do you just want to give Cheney and Bush a blank check? Do you believe Cheney didn't cook the books on WMD? Do you buy that he couldn't get whatever "legal advice" he wanted from John Yoo? If the lawyer gives a sham interpretation of the law, you're not willing to buy that Cheney was preceding in good faith on lawyer's advice, do you? Didn't work for the Enron criminals - why should it work for Cheney?

I think jail time for Cheney would send a powerful signal that outlaws at all levels are suject to prosecution and that crimes of the president and VP are subject to punishment.

That is change I can believe in.

PS: Such investigations and prosecutions would be labeled as vengeance by hardcore Republicans. Are these the people you listen to in arriving at matters of criminal law, Eric? It is not vengeance to enforce the law. It is upholding, in this case, deeply held moral and ethical principles codified as law. Do you deny that there's a difference?

Torture is blind to the idea of party loyalty. Lets remember at least in the case of Vietnam that some of that happened on Johnson's watch.

Secondly, I do not think we need powerful messages being sent but humility.

Third, the Bush Legacy is going to go down as one of the worst in history. That in itself is not a blank check whatsoever.

Lastly, in the area of war crimes I could make the case that Abraham Lincoln could be charged with more war crimes than Bush/Cheney.

[Driver Eight]

remring said:

Torture is blind to the idea of party loyalty. Lets remember at least in the case of Vietnam that some of that happened on Johnson's watch.

Hi Eric:

Maybe you missed where I said in my previous e-mail, I don't know much about the history of torture in Vietnam, whether under Johnson or Nixon. Nixon wouldn't surprise me. Care to enlighten me re: LBJ?

remring said:

Secondly, I do not think we need powerful messages being sent but humility.

Humility? Do you think letting Cheney, Rumsfeld, David Addington (?) and John Yoo, among others, off the hook promotes "humility"? Really?

Do you think it sends a signal to the world that we are humble? Or, rather, that the President of the US and his close deputies are untouchable, above the law, free to commit torture, to manufacture evidence and to lie flat-out as a predicate for deploying our most powerful military in the world into war? What does that say about American humility?

One way to check such arrogance of power is at the ballot box. Mission accomplished - pardon the expression.

Another is to prosecute criminal conduct, i.e, to enforce the laws on the books. Pretty simple formula - you break the laws, you face criminal prosecution.

I think it's a debatable call whether to prosecute Cheney, Rumsfeld, John Yoo, David Addington and others. I do think, for sure, though, that holding an inquiry into torture and war crimes, rather than sweeping it under the rug, shows our neighbors in the world that we take seriously that we MUST be humble in the exercise of our great power, rather than overbearing and fundamentally dishonest.

remring said:

Third, the Bush Legacy is going to go down as one of the worst in history. That in itself is not a blank check whatsoever.

How do you think Nixon was viewed after he left office? Right about where Bush is - is that fair to say? Yet arrogant Republican foreign policy ensued, on the part of Reagan and Bushes I and II. Sorry, Eric, but that theory doesn't work.

Punishment. Embarrassment. Public humilation. Jail time. These are things Republican zealots understand. Their mentality is not too far off that of islamic jihadists. If they had much commitment to genuine humility, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Oh, and as to your bipartisan blame-laying, it's been over 40 years since LBJ was in office. The two Democratic presidents who served full terms since him, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, did not preside over torture as public policy, and Barack Obama has hewn faithful to those same principles, something along the line, IIRC from yesterday, that we should not accept the "false choice" posed by the Bushies, and Republicans in general, between our security and our principles. Quite a Clintonian way of putting it, I'd say - President Clinton often pointed out the false choices posed by right wingers in public policy debates.

remring said:

Lastly, in the area of war crimes I could make the case that Abraham Lincoln could be charged with more war crimes than Bush/Cheney.

Do you suggest our standards and our ethics haven't evolved since then?

Look, Eric, if you think it's better to let Cheney and Rumsfeld and Yoo and Addington and others off the hook, that's fine. I think we may just have a difference of opinion here. I like to see arrogant abuses of power 1) exposed to the light of day, 2) checked and, at times, 3) punished, and I like to see laws on such fundamental questions enforced. Maybe you disagree that torture and the deployment of military force are fundamental issues, maybe these are things you care less about in lieu of other issues.

Edited by Christratton2007, 21 January 2009 - 10:38 PM.
spelling, correction of phrasing

[remring]

Christratton2007 said:

Look, Eric, if you think it's better to let Cheney and Rumsfeld and Yoo and Addington and others off the hook, that's fine. I think we may just have a difference of opinion here. I like to see arrogant abuses of power 1) exposed to the light of day, 2) checked and, at times, 3) punished, and I like to see laws on such fundamental questions enforced. Maybe you disagree that torture and the deployment of military force are not fundamental issues, maybe these are things you care less about in lieu of other issues.

Where the fundamental difference lies is that I do not believe that these people are "Off the Hook". I have felt that much more than being President, Vice-President, etc. is the legacy that you carry with you to your grave.

However, I also believe that in the amount of documentation that I have read about all the Presidents, during different era's etc. that from the days of our founding fathers, these men have flaws. It was Jefferson that said that "All Men Are Created Equal" and yet housed more slaves than you can imagine.

Aaron Burr, the standing Vice President during Jeffersons term had a duel with Alexander Hamilton, the father of our banking system. FDR put Japanese in internment camps. Truman dropped the bomb. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus.

Throughout our history, our presidents have had to make some difficult decisions.

I do not know if this is the time to start a new precedent that the Obama Administration needs to "Prosecute" cases unless there is a significant amount of Malicious Behavior. What I mean by this is that we should not be "Looking For A Conviction" but rather investigating to learn and understand.  They are a new administration and there is no doubt in my mind that Obama is going to want to know everything because that to me seems to be the type of person that he has  so far proved himself to be.  What I mean by this is that there has to be thorough and sufficient proof that the Bush Administration not only knew that they were torturing but encouraged it. It has to be clear cut "Rod Blagojevich-proof".

What I do not want is a replay of the 90s when Bill Clinton was being investigated by Kenneth Starr, who in my belief was out for one thing only and that was to prosecute Bill Clinton any way possible. And he did so by having him lie under oath to a Grand Jury about Monica Lewinsky, an offense that got him impeached. Yes, he broke the law but it should have never gotten to that point in the first place.

They are starting to bring up the word "Depression" now. We have very serious issues to deal with. Replaying the last 8 years of Bush by putting them on trial is not just about punishing them but putting the United States of America through an emotional whirlwind. This would be bigger than OJ if Bush is put on trial.

Lastly, how will Obama accomplish anything in the Senate if in the eyes of the Republicans there is a witchhunt? Eric Holder, already is being held up for a week because Senate Republicans are concerned that Holder will prosecute. Holder has been noncommittal, which I believe is the right stance. Many see that the House and Senate Republicans for the most part being very much the "Conservative" wing of the Republican party and there is not many moderates such as Lindsey Graham who have much power convincing them to nominate Holder.

So the question then becomes if full fledged trials begin in the next four years how do you build majorities in the congress for serious issues like healthcare? What will the public feel when they do not have jobs and we are more concerned of how "Terrorists" were treated?

What I want to see 8 years from now is "Look what we did right" and not "Look who we put in jail".

To me change was not about "Prosecution", change was about a different way to do government.

[remring]

Since we are talking about the Constitution, I would suggest a very good book to read would be "Lincoln's Constition". In many respects, Lincoln reshaped the United States Constitution with his interpretation of it during the Civil War. In doing so we have seen how the Executive Branch has also changed.

http://www.amazon.co...32599787&sr=8-1

If anything the book is thought-provoking and gives some insight. While some might not agree with Farber's conclusions he does point to areas to support Lincoln's action as well as disagree with them. So in that respect it is fairly balanced.

[goldberry]

I'd love to see Donald Rumsfeld investigated for war crimes. And possibly Colin Powell for being a liar.

Let me put it like this: WMD

Blind Freddy could see that when Bush, Blair et al were spouting forth about this, it was a load of utter bollocks. Let me put it this way, the Americans then invaded Iraq. Surprise surprise, no WMD or poison gas weapons. Unfortunately, many of the public swallowed all this about WMD, and not just in the US. Where are these people and their letters to the editor now? Apparently they've gone AWOL.

Why hasn't the US invaded North Korea? I know I know, there's no oil there. And what about the other reason?

As for investigations, I say bring 'em on....

[goldberry]

odd fellow 151 said:

I certainly agree with the majority here. We just need to move past this. We don't need to forgive and we don't need to forget what happened, but it really would be too divisive. It's best to take the high road. The attitude of the country right now seems to be 'extreme, divisive views and ideas are not going to help.' Ideologues on both sides aren't getting a whole lot of love these days.

Have you considered the proposition that it's because of the centrist and apathetic majority, that unjust wars are able to be sold to the public in the first place?

What's to stop the same thing happening again if those at the top are not accountable for their actions? Now, that is not the same thing as a "witch hunt". All Bush would have to say would be: "I listened to my advisors and took the steps I believed that were in the best interests of the country AND FURTHERMORE I had a mandate from the media and the voters to do just that."

But Bush's response is not the point. There must be seen to be accountability. In a perfect world the media would be held accountable but of course they never are for anything.  I think the media needs to take some lithium or whatever it is you take for a bi-polar condition.

Of course people would rather wash their hands of sorry chapters in their history and move on, but that's not what adults do.

Edited by goldberry, 21 January 2009 - 10:34 PM.

[Driver Eight]

remring said:

What I mean by this is that there has to be thorough and sufficient proof that the Bush Administration not only knew that they were torturing but encouraged it.

Do you think Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al., were encouraging torture or no? There is plenty of evidence to suggest they were, and a 9/11-style commission would find out more of the truth and expose it to the light of day. If enough evidence of criminality were found to support an indictment, I say enforce the law and indict the criminals. Torture, and aiding and abetting it, and flouting the law in so doing, should be stigmatized and, where appropriate, prosecuted.

The fact that Senate Republicans might obstruct this highly popular new Administration's basic functioning at this time of multiple major crises - an Administration with a clear, broad mandate backed up by pronounced majorities in both houses of Congress - because they don't want an Attorney General who - shudder! - might investigate crimes committed by prior occupants in the seats of power, hmmm. ... What do you think, Eric? Is that an indictment of the Republican Senators, maybe, rather than the popular new admin? I don't think that's a difficult call.

Clint Eastwood comes to mind: go ahead, Punks, try and obstruct this government. Make our day. I say have the show-down early, and serve notice that there's a popular, powerful new sheriff in town, with the backing of the people. Show the obstructionist whiners who's boss. The petty partisan game-players at this point, dealing from weakness, are the Republicans. Call them on it and let the public decide who's trying to fix things and who's trying to throw a wrench in the works. Their public approval ratings will sink even further, those up for re-election will draw stronger, better-financed opponents, and before long they might see the virtue of cooperation with a common sense agenda for progress.

Edited by Christratton2007, 21 January 2009 - 10:41 PM.

[odd fellow 151]

goldberry said:

Have you considered the proposition that it's because of the centrist and apathetic majority, that unjust wars are able to be sold to the public in the first place?

What's to stop the same thing happening again if those at the top are not accountable for their actions? Now, that is not the same thing as a "witch hunt". All Bush would have to say would be: "I listened to my advisors and took the steps I believed that were in the best interests of the country AND FURTHERMORE I had a mandate from the media and the voters to do just that."

But Bush's response is not the point. There must be seen to be accountability. In a perfect world the media would be held accountable but of course they never are for anything.  I think the media needs to take some lithium or whatever it is you take for a bi-polar condition.

Of course people would rather wash their hands of sorry chapters in their history and move on, but that's not what adults do.

Last I checked children were the ones who can't let things go and move on.  I agree that the Bush administration needs to be held accountable, but also, with the country and the world as bad as it is right now, the last thing we need is to focus on the failures of the past. One of Obama's core beliefs is that constant partisan bickering accomplishes nothing.  If he wants support from Republicans he has to stay true to his word and stay away from partisanship.  Bush and his cronies being investigated and possibly being in jail would be great, but realistically it's just not going to happen under Obama.

[wagtail]

odd fellow 151 said:

Last I checked children were the ones who can't let things go and move on.  I agree that the Bush administration needs to be held accountable, but also, with the country and the world as bad as it is right now, the last thing we need is to focus on the failures of the past. One of Obama's core beliefs is that constant partisan bickering accomplishes nothing.  If he wants support from Republicans he has to stay true to his word and stay away from partisanship.  Bush and his cronies being investigated and possibly being in jail would be great, but realistically it's just not going to happen under Obama.

It's not partisan bickering. Really some of the language people are using is bizarre.  It's simply the pursuit of justice, and justice should be non-partisan, unless you assume someone is guilty, which we don't because it's the basis of any fair judicial process to presume innocence.  How little faith do you have in yourselves, your fellow citizens and your new leadership that you think an investigation could not take place without it destroying your future?  What's up with that?