Hello:

Well, you got your Pelosi's who want to let bygones be bygones... Then you got your Constitutional lawyers like Glenn Greenwald, who wants accountability.

Where do you come down?

I'm talking specifically about the crimes of the Bush administration. Yes, I think he and his cohorts committed CRIMES punishable by prison time. I also understand that there's a constituancy who believes Bush broke no laws...

How do we resolve it? Should we investigate? Should we forget it? Why SHOULD we investigate? Or, in the alternative, why should we not? Is accountability good? Do we hold people to account because we want THEM to pay? Or do we hold people to account so that the public will SEE that they WILL be held accountable?

Do you think there's any thing to account for? Do you think that this stuff eminates only from radical people like me?

excon

"If the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the presidency is to have any validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a president after his term of office has expired,"
Harry S Truman

Truman said this 2 years after he was
President when Congress tried to subpoenae him.
He was right and Congress backed down . The Republicans wanted to continue investigations into Bill Clintoon's actions after he left office and President Bush used executive privilege for the first time to block the subpoena .
President-elect Obama knows that he too will one day be a former President and if we don't want an endless cycle of tit-for-tat criminizing of politics then he too will continue with the precedent.
Judges presiding over criminal trials related to the Iran-contra affair blocked requests by defendants to make Ronald Reagan testify and release his diaries. Which means that in the past ;all 3 branches have refused to act on the executive decisions of former Presidents.

There is enough for government to do in the next term than to pursue witch-hunts and Stalinist show trials.

Investigate for what? Specifically?

Lol ; name it and someone thinks it's criminal. Obama is going to have to expand GITMO for all the people that will be purged. Pretty much any action the President did or authorized was done with Congressional approval.

Hello Steve:

Bush's interrogation, detention, and rendition policies. Let's not forget his domestic spying, either.

excon

In other words, rehashing the same investigations. Let’s spend a gazillion more dollars and waste a gazillion more congressional hours to investigate what’s already been investigated to death. We could call it a media bailout, that might get people watching the news and reading the papers again.

Excon dearie, you seem to forget that Bush is able to pardon people while he is still President. I am quite confident that he will not only pardon himself before he leaves on Jan 20th, but he will pardon Cheney, Rice, etc. etc. of any and all wrongdoings and then nobody can do diddly to any of these criminals. He's gotcha covered, don't worry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:


Do you think there's any thing to account for? Do you think that this stuff eminates only from radical people like me?

excon

---

No. Yes.

What's done is done, let's move on. The most these guys will get is a slap on the wrist, and it won't be the top guys, someone else will take the fall if there is any fall to be taken.

Unfortunately you were right in another thread you posted, there is 2 tier justice in America.

Hello again,

After WW ll, we executed people who waterboarded our prisoners... Today, instead of prosecuting OUR people for waterboarding, we just change the definition, and look the other way...

That might be fine for YOU. It AIN'T fine for me.

excon

The Japanese also used their POWs for bayonet drills, slave labor and beheading contests. Waterboarding was the least of their offense.

Hello tom:

You and I have had many discussions over the years regarding this VERY issue...

I SAY we should ACT because of who WE are. You say we should REACT because of who THEY are.

I'm right. You're wrong.

excon

It's true! It's true! The crown has made it clear.
The climate must be perfect all the year.

A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there's a legal limit to the snow here
In Camelot.
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order, summer lingers through September
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
But in Camelot, Camelot
That's how conditions are.
The rain may never fall till after sundown.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.

Camelot! Camelot!
I know it gives a person pause,
But in Camelot, Camelot
Those are the legal laws.
The snow may never slush upon the hillside.
By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear.
In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

Bush's interrogation, detention, and rendition policies. Let's not forget his domestic spying, either.

excon

---

Weren't these issues already reviewed by the courts with no criminal activity being found? Wouldn't attempting to nail him on these issue count as double jeopardy, since they already went through the legal process?

Elliot

Maybe we could organise a shoe collecting drive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

After WW ll, we executed people who waterboarded our prisoners.... Today, instead of prosecuting OUR people for waterboarding, we just change the definition, and look the other way....

That might be fine for YOU. It AIN'T fine for me.

excon

---

I have read quite a bit of history in my time, Ex, but I have never seen anything about people being executed for waterboarding anyone in WWII.

Mind you, there were executions for actual cases of torture and mass murder in the wake of WWII, but at no time have I ever seen "torture" defined as or said to include "waterboarding" in any historical document or account I have seen. Have you?

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

You and I have had many discussions over the years regarding this VERY issue.....

I SAY we should ACT because of who WE are. You say we should REACT because of who THEY are.

I'm right. You're wrong.

excon

---

Such idealism...

If we don't do whatever is necessary to protect the country, there will be no country to act better than them. Practicality before idealism.

Besides, do you really think that, as bad as our interrogation techniques may be, we aren't still infinitely better than our enemies in our treatment of POWs... even illegal combatants? Do I need to recall for you the copies of the Gitmo menues, schedules of daily activities, lists of prayer and holy books and religious artifacts that have been delivered to the POWs?

Elliot

Elliot

Quote:

---

If we don't do whatever is necessary to protect the country, there will be no country to act better than them. Practicality before idealism.

---

Yeah that's why I mentioned Camelot . In the old days I'd go on to explain the character Mordred .
American Presidents since at least Jackson have faced this dilemna. Lincoln ;credited with preserving the union was far from being clean in his actions . There are too many illustrations where Presidents have faced this very test and chose defending the country from external threat .

Tom,

It goes back long before Jackson. As a war-time general, I'm pretty sure that he had to do things to prisoners that would make the liberals of today SCREAM... I know that the British did bad things to Colonial POWs. And that was just seen as the nature of war.

Elliot

I would describe myself as mostly Democrat, but it's easy to see that Pelosi is letting by-gones be by-gones because we Democrats won the Whitehouse, Congress and Senate.

If McCain had of won, she would be calling for the heads of the Bush administration.

Clearly this is political so the Democrats don't get mired in what will be perceived to be a witch hunt whether there are true criminals or not from the prior administration.

So it's not principles, it's politics.

I prefer to stand on prinicples and all administrations once they leave power or while in power need to be accountable for their actions. Having said that, I don't believe that any serious charges would be brought against anyone because the rich and the powerful don't get the same justice in this country as the regular criminal... lol... the point is, as sad as it might be; I support letting by-gones be by-gones because it will be a huge waste of time, money and focus. None of which the government has in great supply.