DOJ wants Bush, senior cabinet members exempt from Iraq War trial

I like how Manning, who was just relaying
what crimes were done, gets 30 years,
but the 3 main perpetrators? ZILCH,EXEMPT, NADA.
And most likely, will never have to say another word about it.
Nice huh?

reply to post by liveandlearn


Holder is stepping up because there is NO difference between the two administrations and he doesn't want to a standard set. something that could come back on him.

Sure why not pardon them all.

In fact, I would like to suggest we add Obama and his flying circus on the pardon list. Not just for actions already committed but for the ones yet to come.

Originally posted by wrkn4livn
reply to post by liveandlearn

 

Holder is stepping up because there is NO difference between the two administrations and he doesn't want to a standard set. something that could come back on him.

I'm sorry but standards? Standards?!

$50 says for every one congressman you ask to define "standards" 8/10 will likely assume its something to do with taxes and garble garble garble....

Oh you mean precedent, ah yes, that they understand

If I remember correctly, we never ended the first Gulf War. Also, how many sanctions did the UN place on Hussein following that war. Also, how many times did he break the UN rules. Also, how many people simply disappeared, were known to be tortured or killed, raped then killed by the Hussein family. Regardless of your politics, both Democratic and Republican administrations and politicians in general felt that Hussein was a threat to the world and all thought he had WMD. Whether he did and had them moved, or simply bluffed, it really doesnt matter. You cannot blame President Bush and his administration alone, when the nearly entire world was behind them.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
I say block the entire lawsuit. Being that this is a civil case involving government employees and their on the job actions, any money paid out to the plaintiff(s) would come out of the taxpayer's pockets. This could get astronomically expensive to litigate and any judgements levied against any of the defendants could very well bankrupt the USA.

Allow me to disagree. The people being sued supposedly act on your behalf. Someone has to assume responsibility and it looks like they are it. However they are accountable to the people who elect them. Suppose it were to come about, although I highly doubt it will ever happen, then the angry taxpayers might just have to demand accountability from them, and that is something the entire world would like to see happen.

Let's hope this kind of stuff puts a tiny bit of fear in them, although I somehow doubt they give it a second thought.

Originally posted by intrptr
No need for one wrist to slap the other. Thats why the Hauge exists. To give a fair hearing outside the reach of any "Jurist-My-Diction".

International Court of Justice

My understanding of the world court is that individuals cannot stand trial in it. Only nations, furthermore adherence to a ruling is purely voluntary... it's a non binding decision. Essentially, trying Bush, Cheney, and the rest falls outside of their mission. They can try the US itself and say if an action was legal or illegal, but they can't try the specific individuals that made those decisions. Which brings us back to the problem... for previously mentioned reasons we cannot try the Bush administration... the fallout would be much worse than any potential benefit.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Swills
Wait what? Bush and friends being held accountable for the false war in Iraq but then Holder and friends block it? What the deuce?

It's very simple. Holder and the Obama administration will let the previous administration off the hook for just about anything ... BECAUSE ... they want the same treatment from the administration that will follow them. Holder and the Obama administration will expect that the Christie administration let them off the hook for crimes the Obama administration has perp'd. And then Christie will expect the same from whoever follows him. It's the same old back room political deals that have gone on for centuries.

Hows that hope and change coming?

Same ol' same ol' ...

I wouldn't even say this is an example of corruption. It's a simple principal that our entire system of government is based on. The idea is that we elect new people to these offices and move forward. If we focus on electing new people, simply to prosecute those of the past all government simply turns into a race to punish those who fall in with the opposition party. If you think politics are ugly now, imagine a world where Clinton sought to jail Reagan and Bush Sr. In response Bush Jr jailed Clinton, Gore, and the entire cabinet. In response to that Obama jailed Bush, Cheney, the cabinet, and the governors who supported Bush and empowered him in the first place. In the span of a couple administrations, this action would outright lead to massive violence against people of the opposite political party.

Setting this precedent would be one of the worst possible domestic actions an administration could take.

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by Swills

 

Sounds to me like this lady needs to file her case in a court where the U.S. Dept. of Justice has no jurisdiction.

The world court is purely for state vs state matters. She has no standing to present her case there. A best case scenario is the government of Iraq sues the US in the world court based on her story. If the US is found guilty, punitive action/reparations can take place, but as is typical of non binding resolutions... there's no authority to punish the US here and things would quickly devolve into politics. How many countries do you think would put trade with the US at risk over making the US enforce a self inflicted punishment? Furthermore, should the state even be guilty? It was a previous administration that committed any crimes in the first place.

reply to post by Aazadan


So...by your words...we should all just let this slide...let the governments do whatever they want to do...don't make anybody accountable for any decisions...just so to not set a precedent for the future ?

I wonder if I can pull this off at my workplace...do whatever I want...and not be accountable for any consequences of my actions...

Maybe you should try for once to chose an honest president...a government of the people...that works for it's own people....maybe than...the future administrations wouldn't mind "Justice"...

Waste of time. They'll just handball the blame to some low level U.S. 'intelligence' ( ) lackeys and that will be that. The key players won't ever have to front up to court- they'll have government appointed lawyers do all that. ...at tax the payers' expense, of course!

MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by Aazadan

 

So...by your words...we should all just let this slide...let the governments do whatever they want to do...don't make anybody accountable for any decisions...just so to not set a precedent for the future ?

I wonder if I can pull this off at my workplace...do whatever I want...and not be accountable for any consequences of my actions...

Maybe you should try for once to chose an honest president...a government of the people...that works for it's own people....maybe than...the future administrations wouldn't mind "Justice"...

The only way we can make them accountable is to hold their political careers on the line. This has a big flaw though with corporate lobbying. Advertising is a powerful thing, and with enough money, one can simply act against the interests of the people but still be voted into office. In the case of the president, term limits let them do whatever they want in their second term.

I don't like that we can't prosecute them, and there may be some way to get them recognized internationally as the criminals they are so that they can't leave the US but that's about all that can be done without ruining the country. If the partisan split wasn't as bad as it is, or if we had more political parties this wouldn't be an issue.

As for electing an honest guy, that was tried with Ron Paul. He didn't get elected.

reply to post by Swills


They broke it they own it. Colin Powell was right.

You're confused? The DOJ is here to protect the government...not the people. Not support what is right.

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
You're confused? The DOJ is here to protect the government...not the people. Not support what is right.

This is protecting the people through protecting them. I can't understate just how big of a mistake prosecuting a previous administration would be in our current system. I can guarantee you that within 4 administrations of this precedent being set there would be a civil war of republicans against those who don't support them and democrats against those who don't support them. If you were a Republican in a primarily Democrat town, you would count yourself lucky to just get run out of town... getting murdered is more likely.

The ONLY way this could be done without sparking violence and a degenerate political environment is if Republicans prosecuted their own and Democrats prosecuted their own. Only Republicans (and it would take broad support) can put Bush on trial or pass judgment. The dichotomous state of our politics allows for nothing else.