Should a Federal Grand Jury Consider Indicting Bush, Cheney et al for War Crimes

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Would you favor indicting President Obama as a war criminal for his drone program?

John

No, actually. I'm generally in favor of it.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

No, actually. I'm generally in favor of it.

So, since you equated Obama's drone program with Bush/Cheney's torture program......

John

[bobabode]

It could be one of those Opus Dei things with the connies.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

So, since you equated Obama's drone program with Bush/Cheney's torture program......

John

That means that it is / was war, John. Shit happens in war. You guys want to keep your focus on Bush, while Obama is busy making more shit happen in Afghanistan. Whatever.

The drone program and the media's relative lack of interest in it does allow the prez to operative with relative impunity and lack of scrutiny. But folks including civilians are still being killed by this prez by the thousands, and the left's lack of reaction to that - while continuing to stay worked up over something that happened years ago - is quite interesting to watch.

[merrylander]

Maybe some of us personally know parents whose son or daughter came home in a body bag and wonder at the total waste of young lives.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

That means that it is / was war, John. Shit happens in war.

And because "shit happens in war because", there are international treaties - which we're signatory to - outlaw war crimes, torture among them.

The drone program and the media's relative lack of interest in it does allow the prez to operative with relative impunity and lack of scrutiny. But folks including civilians are still being killed by this prez by the thousands, and the left's lack of reaction to that - while continuing to stay worked up over something that happened years ago - is quite interesting to watch.

This "leftie" is far from sanguine about the drone program and I'm not alone. I'm with Malala Yousafzai who diresctly asked President Obama to stop the drones. There's such a thing as executive immunity, however, so we'll have to see what the Warren Justice Department thinks.

John

[Zeke]

"In June 2004, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times obtained copies of legal analyses prepared for the CIA and the Justice Department in 2002. These documents developed a legal basis for the use of torture by U.S. interrogators if acting under the directive of the President of the United States."

Sucks but basically legal and non-prosecutable under appropriate chain of command.

Here's the kicker, though: hasn't Bush II implied the CIA kept him in the dark on a lot of this?

Seems it would break the protection gambit...

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Zeke

"In June 2004, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times obtained copies of legal analyses prepared for the CIA and the Justice Department in 2002. These documents developed a legal basis for the use of torture by U.S. interrogators if acting under the directive of the President of the United States."

And it was total bullshit. It was an after the fact rationale, attempting to decriminalize criminal acts that had already been perpetrated and were then still being perpetrated.

It was not law and it was not a legal opinion from a judge hearing a case. It was more akin to a defense attorney's arguments... but free from any prosecutorial rebuttal.

The acts we perpetrated are specifically declared to be illegal in the Hague and Geneva conventions and, since we are signatory to these treaties, they are specifically illegal under US law and the Constitution. No lawyer's tortured argument (pun intended) can change that fact.

John

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Boreas

And it was total bullshit. It was an after the fact rationale, attempting to decriminalize criminal acts that had already been perpetrated and were then still being perpetrated.

It was not law and it was not a legal opinion from a judge hearing a case. It was more akin to a defense attorney's arguments... but free from any prosecutorial rebuttal.

The acts we perpetrated are specifically declared to be illegal in the Hague and Geneva conventions and, since we are signatory to these treaties, they are specifically illegal under US law and the Constitution. No lawyer's tortured argument (pun intended) can change that fact.

John

Do you mean beyond floating away without prosecution?

I'm going to presume that's legal enough in this instance.

Nobody is going down for this.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Do you mean beyond floating away without prosecution?

I'm going to presume that's legal enough in this instance.

Nobody is going down for this.

Your presumption is tragic. A brief written by a lawyer working on behalf of the perpetrators can never.... ever.... be granted the force of law.

My question in the poll doesn't require a prediction. I don't want to know whether you think anyone will "go down" for these acts or even whether they should. The question is whether a grand Jury investigation into these acts should begin.

In light of known facts, an unwillingness to look into the legality of the Bush Administration's treatment of prisoners betrays a total lack of concern for the actions of our government around the world. "Don't know. Don't care." As I said, tragic (and a few more inflammatory descriptors that I'll withhold).

John