What to Do with G.W. Bush?

[DaveFagan]

"Now that a bipartisan blue-ribbon panel has reached the conclusion that President George W. Bush and his top advisers bear “ultimate responsibility” for authorizing torture in violation of domestic and international law, the question becomes what should the American people and their government do."

What to Do with G.W. Bush? | Consortiumnews


"The logical answer would seem to be: prosecute Bush and his cronies (or turn them over to an international tribunal if the U.S. legal system can’t do the job). After all, everyone, including President Barack Obama and possibly even Bush himself, would agree with the principle that “no man is above the law.”

"The report also noted that the behavior of the Bush administration deviated from the most honorable traditions of U.S. history, dating back to the Revolutionary War and General George Washington’s instructions to his troops not to respond to British cruelty in kind but to treat prisoners of war humanely.
In contrast to those traditions, after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration approved specific techniques of torture while formulating legal rationalizations for these violations of law. Never before, the report found, had there been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.”

Was this illegal?

Would you be prosecuted?
SHould Englund and Graner be pardoned?
Should torture be legal?
Did you know this before this thread?
Should GWBush continue receiving his pension?

 

[German guy]

A general answer:

I feel the American people should hold their Presidents legally responsible for violations of the Constitution, of treaties the US have signed and for violations of basic human right standards. I think everybody in his right mind will agree that no politician and not even the President is above the law. If we didn't believe that, we could as well get an absolutist king.

Maybe I don't know enough about the situation in America, but my first reaction is that the Supreme Court should have been responsible doing that when these laws were first enacted. If it can't or does not, the system is obviously flawed. Not sure how this can be fixed.

My two cents.

 

[mak2]

The first time we try one of our Presidents for "mistakes" during wartime will be the last time we have one willing to go to war...

Wait a minute, maybe I should change my vote.

 

[Rainman05]

People need to be held accountable for their actions. The president is no different.

 

[Paschendale]

The first time we try one of our Presidents for "mistakes" during wartime will be the last time we have one willing to go to war...

Wait a minute, maybe I should change my vote.

I think there's a wide gap between "mistake" and "intentionally lied to the American people and the whole world for several years in order to justify an unnecessary war." Also the torture of prisoners in Gitmo. I know of no definition of war criminal that includes the Middle Eastern dictators that we've been going after that excludes GWB.

 

[longview]

As long as we hold all current ,past and, future Presidents to EXACTLY the same standards, OK.

 

[Paschendale]

As long as we hold all current ,past and, future Presidents to EXACTLY the same standards, OK.

Absolutely. If Obama is continuing the torture policies, then he's a war criminal too.

 

[DaveFagan]

I see it as a no-brainer because, if you or I had done it, like Englund and Graner, we would be in jail. Ergo, GWBush should be in jail. Liberty and justice for all. GWBush should be put if jail for not defending Englund and Graner who were simply his loyal minions doing what the CIA showed them. He did not defend his troops, even if they were scumbags. That would make GWBush a total scumbag. Obama also, because Guantanamo is ongoing on his watch. He also killed a bunch of Libyan civilians with air strikes. More prosecution. Nobody declared a war, ergo it is not a mistake of "WAR."

 

[Neosteve]

WTF is a Blue Ribbon Bi-Partisan Panel? Holy Crap.

 

[keymanjim]

Your "nonpartisan blue-ribbon panel" is funded by George Soros. I'll give their findings as much considerations as the 4000% margin of error Lancet study on Iraqi deaths. Which was also funded by Soros.

 

[Perotista]

"Now that a bipartisan blue-ribbon panel has reached the conclusion that President George W. Bush and his top advisers bear “ultimate responsibility” for authorizing torture in violation of domestic and international law, the question becomes what should the American people and their government do."

What to Do with G.W. Bush? | Consortiumnews


"The logical answer would seem to be: prosecute Bush and his cronies (or turn them over to an international tribunal if the U.S. legal system can’t do the job). After all, everyone, including President Barack Obama and possibly even Bush himself, would agree with the principle that “no man is above the law.”

"The report also noted that the behavior of the Bush administration deviated from the most honorable traditions of U.S. history, dating back to the Revolutionary War and General George Washington’s instructions to his troops not to respond to British cruelty in kind but to treat prisoners of war humanely.
In contrast to those traditions, after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration approved specific techniques of torture while formulating legal rationalizations for these violations of law. Never before, the report found, had there been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.”

Was this illegal?

Would you be prosecuted?
SHould Englund and Graner be pardoned?
Should torture be legal?
Did you know this before this thread?
Should GWBush continue receiving his pension?

As a life long military man I see nothing that Bush Jr. did wrong or that was against the rule of war. This sounds more like a partisan witch hunts ala the Salem Witch hunts than one that should be taken serious. Bush Jr. has been gone from the scene for more than 4 years, it is time to take of today's business and problems, not to harp on the past. That is unless you are a die hard partisan.

 

[American]

Nothing will ever come of this, it's a pipe-dream by leftwing partisan nutjobs.

 

[APACHERAT]

I think there's a wide gap between "mistake" and "intentionally lied to the American people and the whole world for several years in order to justify an unnecessary war." Also the torture of prisoners in Gitmo. I know of no definition of war criminal that includes the Middle Eastern dictators that we've been going after that excludes GWB.

You need to pick up a dictionary unless you have evidence that Bush didn't believe that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

When you have Saddam Hussein telling the UN before we went to war that he lost track of 450 artillery shells filled with mustard gas and sarin gas and has no idea where they were. That's not good enough, the UN cease fire agreement required that Iran account for every milligram of chemical that could be used as a weapon.

But we did eventually found 400 mustard and sarin artillery shells buried in the desert. Is anyone concerned with the 50 that are unaccounted for ?

For one to be lieing that person must be aware he's lieing. If Bush even believed there was a 1 % chance that Saddam had WMD's then he wasn't lieing.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Was the "blue ribbon panel" asked to opine on Obama's use of drones to murder American citizens, without due process, even those who are innocent of any crime, as well as thousands of innocent citizens of countries America is not at war with?

The left has their partisan knickers in a twist over a few days of waterboarding, that was legally approved by government legal staff and that incidentally led directly to Obama's finest moment, the taking out of bin Laden, yet looks the other way when their messiah kills people solely on the basis of his wishes.

 

[Sarcogito]

WTF is a Blue Ribbon Bi-Partisan Panel? Holy Crap.

I don't know, but it sure sounds important.

 

[Sarcogito]

Nothing will ever come of this, it's a pipe-dream by leftwing partisan nutjobs.

Of course it is a pipe dream. Just because I think he should be prosecuted doesn't mean for a second that I think he will. Of course he won't. Presidential immunity pretty much precludes it.

 

[DaveFagan]

Was the "blue ribbon panel" asked to opine on Obama's use of drones to murder American citizens, without due process, even those who are innocent of any crime, as well as thousands of innocent citizens of countries America is not at war with?

The left has their partisan knickers in a twist over a few days of waterboarding, that was legally approved by government legal staff and that incidentally led directly to Obama's finest moment, the taking out of bin Laden, yet looks the other way when their messiah kills people solely on the basis of his wishes.

There is not an iota of evidence that indicates that torture led to binLaden. End of story. GWBush is guilty of torture by any measure. Let bygones be bygones. Kiss my cojones, but that is a crime. Just because he killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein is another good reason to try him. If it was wrong for Saddam to kill Iraqis, it was more wrong for GWShiiteForBrains. GwShiiteForBrains because the half a million dead Iraqis rest in the cerebral conscience of the person responsible for their deaths and since they are mostly Shiites, it accounts for GWShiiteForBrains. Within the cerebellum, don't you think?

 

[justabubba]

my gut says prosecute while my head says no, he relied on a legal opinion which gave basis to proceed with "enhanced interrogation" methods

both head and gut say we should subject the authors of that legal opinion to the professional scrutiny of their peers. would love for it to be found that cheney ordered the opinion to crafted with a specified outcome. then there would be very legitmate basis for trial

 

[Morality Games]

"Now that a bipartisan blue-ribbon panel has reached the conclusion that President George W. Bush and his top advisers bear “ultimate responsibility” for authorizing torture in violation of domestic and international law, the question becomes what should the American people and their government do."

What to Do with G.W. Bush? | Consortiumnews


"The logical answer would seem to be: prosecute Bush and his cronies (or turn them over to an international tribunal if the U.S. legal system can’t do the job). After all, everyone, including President Barack Obama and possibly even Bush himself, would agree with the principle that “no man is above the law.”

"The report also noted that the behavior of the Bush administration deviated from the most honorable traditions of U.S. history, dating back to the Revolutionary War and General George Washington’s instructions to his troops not to respond to British cruelty in kind but to treat prisoners of war humanely.
In contrast to those traditions, after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration approved specific techniques of torture while formulating legal rationalizations for these violations of law. Never before, the report found, had there been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.”

Was this illegal?

Would you be prosecuted?
SHould Englund and Graner be pardoned?
Should torture be legal?
Did you know this before this thread?
Should GWBush continue receiving his pension?

... the American people are too uninvolved in the process of war to be his judge.

 

[DaveFagan]

my gut says prosecute while my head says no, he relied on a legal opinion which gave basis to proceed with "enhanced interrogation" methods

both head and gut say we should subject the authors of that legal opinion to the professional scrutiny of their peers. would love for it to be found that cheney ordered the opinion to crafted with a specified outcome. then there would be very legitmate basis for trial

If torture was illegal for Graner and Englund leading to jail, then the same should be true for Bush and Cheney and perhaps others, but the final decision was the "decider's," to quote his own self description.

 

[Fisher]

Are we going to also hang all the democrats who voted for the war without even reading the classified document made available for their review prior to the vote?

 

[Bezukhov]

One problem with putting GWB on trial is that it wouldn't be too difficult for his lawyers to get it thrown out on the basis of diminished capacity. GWB, after all, is dumber than a bag of hammers.

 

[nota bene]

One problem with putting GWB on trial is that it wouldn't be too difficult for his lawyers to get it thrown out on the basis of diminished capacity. GWB, after all, is dumber than a bag of hammers.

So where did you earn your MBA?

 

[pbrauer]

LMMFAO it was me, I thought it would be fun to do, so I did. :lamo

 

[Ikari]

"Now that a bipartisan blue-ribbon panel has reached the conclusion that President George W. Bush and his top advisers bear “ultimate responsibility” for authorizing torture in violation of domestic and international law, the question becomes what should the American people and their government do."

What to Do with G.W. Bush? | Consortiumnews


"The logical answer would seem to be: prosecute Bush and his cronies (or turn them over to an international tribunal if the U.S. legal system can’t do the job). After all, everyone, including President Barack Obama and possibly even Bush himself, would agree with the principle that “no man is above the law.”

"The report also noted that the behavior of the Bush administration deviated from the most honorable traditions of U.S. history, dating back to the Revolutionary War and General George Washington’s instructions to his troops not to respond to British cruelty in kind but to treat prisoners of war humanely.
In contrast to those traditions, after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration approved specific techniques of torture while formulating legal rationalizations for these violations of law. Never before, the report found, had there been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.”

Was this illegal?

Would you be prosecuted?
SHould Englund and Graner be pardoned?
Should torture be legal?
Did you know this before this thread?
Should GWBush continue receiving his pension?

Should be prosecuted? Yes. Will be? No.

It's a long way since Nixon, who only lied about knowing something and had no actual involvement in other criminal activity. But then we held Presidents responsible, now we do not.