An Unwise Vindicativeness from the Left on Trying to Prosecute Bush and Cheney

Oh, Chet, wrong on so many levels (0.00 / 0)

First, there is lots of evidence, including confessions from Bush and Cheney that they personally approved torturing at least 3 prisoners.  

Second, we can't prove guilt until there is a trial.  So if Bush, Cheney and others are innocent, let's have a trial and see what a jury thinks or rejoin the World Court and let the World Court decide.

Third, these are crimes the U.S. prosecuted against the Japanese after WWII, so why should Bush administration officials be exempt.  

Fourth, the President and his administration are not above the law.  If you were to break a law then have the power to change the law, which is exactly what Bush and Cheney did, you would still have broken the law.  

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two-thirds of Americans favor investigating whether the George W. Bush administration overstepped legal boundaries in its "war on terror," according to a poll released Thursday by USA Today and Gallup.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20...

---

by: joeshead @ Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 06:58:05 AM CST

Chetly, here's the argument from the Constitutional perspective (0.00 / 0)

We are all war criminals, including President Obama, if we do nothing to hold war criminals from the Bush administration accountable.  Jonathan Turley says it best.

---

by: joeshead @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 06:54:25 AM CST

Assuming (0.00 / 0)

indeed, that a war crime was committed.  So, I take you are suggesting executing the 51% (of course, thanks to the secret ballot, there's no way to identify them) of the American population that voted for Bush in 2004, since they endorsed his "war cimes". Or at least executing the US Government government officials - including O'Bama, Pelosi, and all other Democrats except Conyers and one or two others, that refused to even try to impeach Bush after they had the power to in 2007 ?

The bottom line is that there was not enough evidence to impeach Bush, otherwise it would have been done and tried then.  The idea of an "ex post facto" impeachment is what I'm calling ridiculous.  That's different from a future prosecution of war crimes if evidence existed to that effect.

If you, or Congress, finds evidence in the future that Bush actually authorized a genuine "war crime," and you can prove it to the standard of criminal guilt (guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and innocent until proven guilty), I have no problem with a prosecutor filing that case.  But you're arguing not that specific facts prove war crimes but no one is acting - you're arguing that you think war crimes might have been committed and want to root around searching for evidence without probable cause.  Of course - if war crimes were committed - humanity has a moral obligation to act on that.  So prove up your case that they were committed.

By the way, the very act of war - though you consider it distasteful (and I do as well), is not a war crime.

---

by: chetly @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 15:05:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just saw this (0.00 / 0)

Just saw this anti-constitutional blather from you:

So if Bush, Cheney and others are innocent, let's have a trial and see what a jury thinks or rejoin the World Court and let the World Court decide.

How about "innocent until proven guilty", Bruce, not "if they are innocent, let's have a trial."

Find a prosecutor willing to bring charges, and a judge who won't dismiss them, present the pre-trial probable cause evidence and pass that hurdle, and we'll talk.

Bruce, the real fascist here is you IF your really advocating guilt until proven innocent, which, thus far is the logical conclusion of your argument.

Finally, let's put this on a scale of grandness in historical terms, even if you assertions are true.
__________________________________________________
Bush (allegedly, to you) authorized light torture of 3 prisoners.

Hitler ordered the extermination of an entire ethnic group, killing 6 million directly and tens of millions by the effects of his actions.
Stalin purged 20 million.
Pol Pot - millions genocidally killed.
Saddam gassed thousands of his own citizens.
bin Laden ordered the deaths of 3000 at least because they were Christian, secular, or American, or worked for the American cause.
_________________________________________________
In the weight of history, Bush's actions were trivial, though I recognize the need for law enforcement even in trivial cases.

FDR ordered the detainment of thousands based on their ethnicity.
Lincoln suspended Habeas corpus for everyone in the south.
Democrat President Andrew Jackson ordered the mass relocation - and effective deaths of many - of nearly all of Georgia's and other native Americans to Oklahoma in the Trail of Tears.  Should we pass ex post facto resolutions condemning these illegal actions (note, the two war-time actions may have been quite "ethical" and have more legal grounding than the Trail of Tears, which blatantly violated an existing Supreme Court ruling)?

---

by: chetly @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 15:19:00 PM CST

Chetly, innocent until proven guilty (0.00 / 0)

I'm willing to give Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest of them a fair trial, of course.  But to not have the trial would be the real crime.  I'm no facist, Chetly, and I think you know that.  

What there has been up till now is lots of evidence, but nowhere to present that evidence to a jury.

There will be a truth commission in the Senate and evidence will be presented and it won't be of "light torture" if there even is such a thing.  The truth will set you free, Chetly and hopefully the truth will set Bush, Cheney and the rest of them free and America can the truth.  

It's time for the Bush administration to stand trial for its crimes against humanity.

I suggest that you be subjected to the same "light torture" that our prisoners were subjected.  For that matter, how about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, John Yoo and all the others that are responsbile for our torture be subjected to what they authorized and then we'll see if there is such a thing as "light torture."  

---

by: joeshead @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 06:34:55 AM CST

In one breath you ... (0.00 / 0)

Bruce, in one breath you are "willing to give ... them a fair trial" and give lip service to innocent until proven guilty, but in the next you assert Bush must stand trial for "its crimes against humanity," a statement of assumed guilt.  Not it's alleged crimes - but its crimes.  You've convicted him already in your mind and your rhetoric  that may not be fascist in and of itself, but its not in the spirit of American jurisprudence or due process.

Due process is more than just having a fair trial - its not having a trial if the standards of probable cause are not met.  It's not being subject to undue or political prosecution.  So we have to ask ourselves - is there enough evidence to justify a trial of Bush or Cheney themselves (as opposed to a few bad apples, which have committed war crimes in every war hitherto and hereto).  If there is - you as the activist should be able to convince a prosecutor to bring the charges, or in the alternative Congress to bring them or a special prosecutor (I understand that is what the petition asks for, but the petition itself presents evidence like "Cheney brazenly admitted" to something, and if you read the link, he admits to "agressive counter-terrorism," but explicitly denies torture ever occurred, so the links and evidence don't match the petitions claims as to what they allegedly prove).  As to the individual bad apples, while I know we're not perfect, our JAG and other criminal prosecuting systems are among the best in the world.  There are many world powers that make no effort to keep their warriors in check and abiding by standards of moral conduct.

Finally, I do not support even "light torture," and think every individual instance should be prosecuted, but I used that term to draw a distinction.  As you know, I've always been on the McCain side of this issue (though I disagreed with McCain on a number of other things, and Bush on a number of other things).  The distinction is obvious - even you admit (seemingly) the best case you have is that Bush authorized torture allegedly in 3 instances (of course, that's all you know about, but that's the nature of burdens of proof). There is no question that asking for particular aggressive activities to be allowed was a mistake, but I don't see evidence he authorized some illegal action and every time the Supreme Court said no to something he abided by it.

But I used the term light torture to remind people of what the par for the course of human history was and is.  Being yelled at, harshly interrogated, or even water-boarded (which is across the line in my opinion) share little in common with having a gang of armed men tie you up and rape your wife and child in front of you, then shoot you in the back of the head afterwards while your wife and child watch.  It's not anything like having your fingernails and toenails yanked out, or electrodes place on sensitive parts (or any parts) of your body, or being pulled on a rack as in the middle ages, or burned alive in a giant copper bull as the ancient Romans would do.  It isn't the genocide of 6 million, the purges of 20 million, the killing fields of Pol Pot, or number of mini-genocides in eastern Africa of recent days.

Bottom line is that you're upset Bush AUTHORIZED the war, and you want him to burn for that.  But if that's the case, then Hillary and hundreds of other heads should roll.  But authorizing a war - even one which was a mistake and  poorly executed or ill-conceived (I'm of the opinion not that some kind of military action in Iraq - say another version of Gulf War I limited to further reducing Saddam's capabilities and setting a WMD-inspection doctrine and getting out - was reasonable, but that the goal of Democracy building and regime change didn't pass the test of cost-benefit analysis in terms time, money and human loss) as Iraq, is not itself a crime.  It's a mistake - an error of judgment - to which history will judge Bush accordingly.  The grand mistake of the was either Bush didn't realize democracy building would cost ridiculous amounts, or he proceeded anyway knowing it - that combined with his inability to exert fiscal control domestically. But history is complex enough that even this full story hasn't been fully written yet, and there was value gained in Iraq despite all this and one can only hope that a stable Iraq isn't given up on now that we've already invested a large % of the cost to achieve it.  In game theory, its a game of "dollar auction" and we've already overbid for the dollar but trying to get something back might be worth it.

---

by: chetly @ Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 18:36:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Chet, it's not just me. It's a majority of Americans. Including Republicans (0.00 / 0)

Chet, I believe the barrier for a trial has been met already.  Given that, a fair trial, which is more than Bush has allowed for those at Guantnamo, is what I am calling for.  I am for letting Bush know what crimes he's being accused of and letting his attorneys review the evidence against him, which is more than has been allowed for those in Guantanamo too.  

Justice can be inconvenient.  Our Constitution demands we give equal justice even to those that our President thinks may not deserve it.  

As for who is demanding trials, maybe this information will clear things up for you Chet.

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll released yesterday negates all of those beliefs.  Here was the question that was asked about torture -- note that it's phrased in the most pro-torture manner possible, because it is grounded in the ludicrous, 24-clichéd "ticking time bomb" excuse that is the most commonly used argument by torture advocates:

   Q. Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?

Even more surprisingly for spouters of conventional wisdom, a majority of Americans (50-47%) believe that the Obama administration should investigate whether the Bush administration's treatment of detainees was illegal.  When asked:  "Do you think the Obama administration should or should not investigate whether any laws were broken in the way terrorism suspects were treated under the Bush administration?," Democrats overwhelmingly favor such investigations (69%), while Republicans oppose them by the same margin, and independents are slightly against.

By a wide margin --  58-40% -- Americans say that torture should never be used, no matter the circumstances.  Let's repeat that:  "no matter the circumstance."  That margin is enormous among Democrats (71-28%) and substantial among independents (56-43%).  As usual these days, Republicans hold the minority view, but even among them there is substantial categorical opposition to torture (42-55%).

---

by: joeshead @ Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 05:41:28 AM CST

Ah, polls (0.00 / 0)

I could explain why your poll doesn't address this issue, and the weakness in general of polling this type of question (because, particularly on this issue, slight changes to questions have been changes to results), but its not worth it because you've used a poll saying Americans agree that torture is impermissible to support an argument that non-citizen detainees deserve the same rights as US citizens. You can't even use evidence relevant to your argument.

First, you must separate any trial of non-US citizens detained in warfare from trials of US citizens.  Our Constitution demands equality of US citizen.  But even if all things were equal between a detained and US citizen, the trials of all individuals should be conceptually separate.  Individuals have rights, not concepts or groups.  So, the question is solely - did Bush break law as President, and separately, did each of the detainees participate unlawfully as non-state authorized combatants in fighting against the US military, or for a higher level of punishment, plot to murder 3000 individuals in 9/11 or elsewhere.  The first should be rather easy to prove - the latter shouldn't.  Now, I disagree with the strategy of Bush on this - I think he should have had summary military tribunals very early on on these two questions, and then sent them to Gitmo serving defined prison terms rather than the reverse, as temporary holding.  But I don't doubt that those at Gitmo - with an exception or two perhaps - belong there, and I do doubt that there is any Constitutional reason or even international law reason why Bush's trial-less Gitmo strategy was illegal.  Certainly not clearly illegal in a way that would justify conviction of Bush as a war criminal - even if a mistake, it was uncharted international law territory because its a war of non-state terrorism with little international law precedent.

Of course, if there is specific evidence of an ordering of torture - another separate issue - you'd have a case, but I haven't seen it and you are unable to link to it, so, by reason of presumption, you have nothing there - at least yet.  And fortunately, even O'Bama and his administration, are more reasonable than you on this issue because they understand the dangers I pointed out in this entry.

---

by: chetly @ Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 17:12:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Chet, you want links, here you go (0.00 / 0)

Also, Chet, you seem to forget the purpose of a trial.  Evidence is presented at a trial, not before.  All you have to have before a trial is reasonable evidence a crime was committed and I believe that threshold has been crossed many times over.

As far as Obama agreeing with you, I disagree.  The problem Obama has is that the evidence has been tainted by torture and the likelihood is that evidence obtained by torture will be thrown out of court.  So Obama faces a catch 22 in that regard.  

As for links, here's just a few:
Bush admits he approved torture
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...

The torture tape fingering Bush as a war criminal
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...

The Bush administrations Most Despicable Act
http://www.time.com/time/natio...

I can hear the comeback of "That's just the liberal media" now.  

---

by: joeshead @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:33:39 AM CST

Another link you might want to visit (0.00 / 0)

http://levin.senate.gov/newsro...

---

by: joeshead @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:58:12 AM CST

CIA admits it destroyed 92 interrogation tapes (0.00 / 0)

First it was zero, then two, then two plus an audio tape, now it 92.  

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/...

---

by: joeshead @ Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 19:35:38 PM CST

Another report for you to read Chet (0.00 / 0)

You ask for proof and evidence of crimes, Chetly, here is a report from the Center for Constitutional Rights.

http://ccrjustice.org/files/CC...

---

by: joeshead @ Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:30:34 AM CST

My last word (0.00 / 0)

I've looked at some of your links, but I tire of reading "Bush admits ..." headlines and then seeing articles that don't prove that.  Most of your articles don't prove what you say they do, as I noted above.

But I'm content to see if any prosecutor ends up with the case, a judge takes it past probable cause, etc.  If the evidence were so clear, the left would have (rightfully) impeached and removed him from office in 2007.

---

by: chetly @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 00:03:09 AM CDT

That's the best you can do... (0.00 / 0)

What about the International Criminial Court, Chet?  Will that do.  You standard, he's only guilty if a prosecutor brings a case is bullshit.

You and I both know it's mostly political.  I'm betting on the Obama administration and/or Congress doing the right thing and bringing charges, possibly appoint a Special Prosecutor, so that it doesn't have to be investigated in Congress and take time away from righting the economic ship of this country that the Republicans and George W. Bush have almost sunk in just 8 short years.

---

by: joeshead @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 14:19:02 PM CDT

Lawyer seeks to prosecute Bush for torture, bar him from Canada (0.00 / 0)

Lawyer seeks to prosecute Bush for torture, bar him from Canada
http://rawstory.com//printstor...
03/12/2009 @ 2:18 pm
Filed by Stephen C. Webster

Even out of power and away from the White House, former President George W. Bush seemingly cannot get away from calls for his prosecution.

The latest outcry comes from a Canadian attorney with Lawyers Against the War, who said she will file a suit against Bush and bar his entry to Canada over alleged war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Former President Bush plans a visit to Canada on March 17 for a speaking engagement at Calgary, on invite from the city's chamber of commerce.

"In a letter to the [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] war crimes section and copied to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and other federal ministers and opposition MPs, the Lawyers Against the War group claims that Bush is 'inadmissible to Canada . . . because of overwhelming evidence that he has committed, outside Canada, torture and other offences' as detailed in Canada's War Crimes Act," reported Canada.com.

The letter (PDF link) asks the mounted police to "begin an investigation of George W. Bush for aiding, abetting and counseling torture between November 13, 2001 and November 2008 at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Bagram prison in Afghanistan and other places."

---

by: joeshead @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 20:35:43 PM CDT

All rhetoric (0.00 / 0)

Everything you've cited is all rhetoric by politicians that gain from demonizing Bush.  Let's see if Canada bans him ... other than just an irate parliamentarian with an agenda spewing off.  

My standard is the essence of due process and American practice for 220 years, Bruce.  It is true that not all crimes are prosecuted, but it is true that as a matter of American law and what I consider rightful Constitutional practice, folks are innocent until proven guilty.  That may be "bullshit" in your mind, but it just proves you consider the Constitution bs.

---

by: chetly @ Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 19:04:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]