Elizabeth Holtzman: One day, there will be prosecutions for the misdeeds of the Bush administration.
Elizabeth Holtzman
Former U.S. Congresswoman
Impunity for the Bush Administration Won't Last
.....................
Refusing to review possible criminal misconduct by the Bush administration also cripples American power. It makes it harder for the U.S. to condemn impunity abroad. How effectively can we argue for the rule of law in Syria or Iraq or anywhere else if we don't apply it fully here at home?
And it leaves Americans open to foreign prosecution. If we refuse to act, other countries will investigate and prosecute U.S. officials who may have violated criminal or international law. If their citizens were mistreated in Guantanamo, or torture took place on their soil, they can claim jurisdiction. Right now, Spain is launching an inquiry into top Bush administration lawyers who greenlighted torture.
In the long run, no matter how much the U.S. tries to duck accountability, there will no impunity. Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was finally prosecuted for torture and murder, despite 27 years of evading it.
In the U.S., there is no statute of limitations for certain cases of torture, including when death results. One day, there will be prosecutions for the misdeeds of the Bush administration. Then the whole story of torturing and mistreating detainees will be spread out on the table of history for all to see. The question is, how long will we have to live with impunity and how much more damage to American democracy and power will we suffer until that day comes?
the rest:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-holtzman/impunity-for-the-bush-administration_b_1258568.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Every terrible policy of the bush administration (as well as a few others above and beyond his bullshit) has been conducted by this president as well.
demgrrrll
(3,590 posts)Indydem
(2,642 posts)Libya, Guantanamo, Rendition, acts of war against other countries - all still happening under President Obama.
What can you tell someone that can't distinguish between our roles in Iraq and Libya?
Nothing, they've forsaken reason altogether.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Same animal.
Different spots.
Still illegal
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)17 March 2011: The UN Security Council, acting under the authority of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, approved a no-fly zone by a vote of ten in favour, zero against, and five abstentions, via United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The five abstentions were: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Germany.[51][52][53][62][63] Less than twenty-four hours later, Libya announced that it would halt all military operations in response to the UN Security Council resolution.
<...>
19 March 2011: French[71] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined by coalition forces with strikes against armoured units south of Benghazi and attacks on Libyan air-defence systems, as UN Security Council Resolution 1973 called for using "all necessary means" to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas from attack, imposed a no-fly zone, and called for an immediate and with-standing cease-fire, while also strengthening travel bans on members of the regime, arms embargoes, and asset freezes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
You do realize a 'no fly zone' is something that requires military action, right?
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Just because the President has a (D) next to his name, doesn't make the killing brown people OK.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)The UN authorized the enforcement. Period. You can deny it all you want, but that only demonstrates your divergence from reality.
Here's more reality:
The Iraqi People didn't want us to invade.
The Libyan People were desperately calling for intervention.
Saddam Hussein was not massacring his own people.
Moumar Ghaddafi was.
The global consensus in 1st world countries was entirely against invading Iraq.
The global consensus in 1st world countries supported intervention in Libya.
The UN did not vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq.
The UN DID authorize intervention, including the use of force to protect civilians, in Libya.
I'm always amazed that someone can have the facts put right in front of them and still deny reality. You are entitled to your opinion, even when the facts prove that opinion dead wrong. Personally, I never let my desire to perceive something a certain way interfere with my cognition. It's fascinating to me that someone's desire to perceive Obama as the 'bad guy' can so thoroughly detach them from reality. It's really hard to prove something more wrong than what has been proven right here in this thread. Thank you for the case study.
Truly amazing.
Those are some interesting versions of reality. I suppose it just goes to show that reality is a slippery notion.
Neither the Iraqi, nor the Libyan people were polled for their desires. 'Course we saw a condensed local version on Fox and CNN. I met some Iraqis who invited us to tea, and thanked us for the action. Either way, NOT a fact of "reality".
How much of a body count constitutes a "massacre"? Just wondering. Saddam, Uday, and Qusay were racking up quite a count. Very subjective and brutal version of "reality" there...
It seems interesting that you use the term first world "global consensus" to describe the first world agendas. Merely where they align, is there any consensus. If one were to look a little deeper for the true divergence, one may note a slightly different version of "reality".
Toodles!
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Sorry, but there's no point at all in trying to have a discussion with someone that thinks Iraq and Libya are similar in any way other than the US sent troops there.
You grouped them together as in having opposing desires for US intervention as a version of "reality".
So you're not going to have a discussion with yourself?
And your ignoring my other refutations of your versions of "reality" means you see where you've oversimplified, and made broad sweeping statements about people of which you actually know little?
Or are we to believe that you are aware of some foreign policy insight that you aren't presenting any evidence of?
It all seems a little un "reality" to me.
وداعا
Simple question:
"Did the UN authorize force in Libya?"
It's a 'yes/no' question.
cbrer
(1,831 posts)To dispute true facts.
May one suggest you stick to them when referring to reality?
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)I know what you're trying to do, and it's not working.
I asked you a question. You refuse to answer it. You refuse because it would reveal that you're either deluded or just playing a stupid game.
My money is on the latter.
So why can't you answer the question?
cbrer
(1,831 posts)Of extensional reasoning, one might realize I did answer the question. Facts are not in dispute. The UN so voted.
No matter what your thoughts were, the falsity of your statements is what I was commenting about. This discussion isn't limited to the UN. You can obviously read. Why can't you discuss your blatantly absurd statements of "reality"? There's a little evasion for you.
Although I must admit to moments of delusions, as well as game playing, this ain't one of 'em.
Are we hijacking this thread? I could have sworn that it was supposed to be about the prosecution of GWB. And whether or not that prosecution could leak over to BHO. Not that I won't always attempt to illuminate abusrdity and falsehood. But we're getting a little off track.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)I always find it astonishing that people, like yourself, can deny what can be indisputably proven and construct beliefs that diverge from reality almost entirely.
Okay, so you agree that the UN voted to authorize the use of force in Libya. I can only imagine it was so difficult to reach this point because such an admission is in direct conflict with your desire to force parity on the two different circumstances. The next logical question is this one: When did the UN vote to allow the US (and let's not forget Poland) to invade Iraq?
cbrer
(1,831 posts)I never denied UN votes. I denied your version of reality. I was steering the discussion to the ridiculous notions you were suggesting as reality. But you still won't admit it. You won't stop attempting to debate facts. And you won't stop hijacking this thread.
Nothing I've written has had the least amount of impact to your delusions. I'm glad you're astonished. I'm glad you love throwing statements around as if you can actually perform cognitive, connective reasoning.
The Hussein clan didn't massacre their people?
Libyans all wanted us to militarily interfere, but none of the Iraqis?
Man I don't know where you get this stuff. But you accuse me of constructing beliefs that diverge from reality??
Are you willing to share whatever you're smoking?
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)When did the UN vote to allow the US (and let's not forget Poland) to invade Iraq?
cbrer
(1,831 posts)The title of this thread deals with prosecuting GW Bush.
I joined your discussion with IndyDem to point out the fallacies of your version of reality.
Apparently you're able to use a keyboard, and have an internet connection, so you can find out the entire UN agenda, including votes, in 10 minutes. You may find it interesting to debate facts. Start a thread. If you want to join this discussion, we'd love the input.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)You jumped into a discussion, made a ridiculous claim, can't back it up or answer the questions, and you're looking for a way to bail without looking foolish.
Too late.
I' done with you.
Ian62
(604 posts)Some estimates I have seen have 50 civilians killed for each target kill.
Pictures of mangled 5 year old kids and suchlike.
And you wonder why people in Pakistan are upset at the US?
More terrorists and Islamic extremists are being recruited than are being killed from this policy.
And often when a terrorist or insurgent or Islamic Extremist leader gets killed, he gets replaced by a younger more extreme member from their ranks.
Obama has increased, not decreased the use of drones.
Drone killing going on in Yemen too.
You cannot kill an idea with a bullet or a bomb. You have to discredit it.
Obama came in saying he was going to talk to the Arab/Muslim world.
He put them in Drone sights instead.
Is this what Dem's are supposed to be like?
I thought they were for improving the plight of the underprivileged. Not advocates of their murder.
cbrer
(1,831 posts)Reports that drone attacks have tripled under the Obama administration. Our Nobel Peace Prize winner.
He has also factually reversed his statements about becoming a more transparent administration.
I agree completely with your assesment of his/their actions, and the correct philosophy concerning ideas, and their promotion. He may be the best choice from a bad lot, but we have a ways to go.
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Looking the Other Way IS a War Crime in and of itself.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)tomp
(9,512 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)I spit out my coffee all over my keyboard. The seys are ktickey.
rocktivity
(44,576 posts)
rocktivity
[url=http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php][img]
[/img][/url]
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Those who side with Cheney are not necessarily evil, they just live that way -- another choice.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)But that's a mighty big IF!
Phlem
(6,323 posts)you deserve every single one of those hearts, your posts are awesome and you are awesome. Always with the lifting of my spirits.
-p
grasswire
(50,130 posts)That's the most profound wish I can offer.
May it be so.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)She could have gone on to the Senate if Jacob Javits (who had been in the Senate forever and was already dying of ALS) hadn't insisted on running as an independent, siphoning of enough votes for Alfonse d'Amato to win.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Javits didn't run as an independent. He ran as the nominee of the Liberal Party, which at that time had an automatic ballot line in New York because enough dimwits had voted Liberal in the last gubernatorial election.
That we got D'Amato instead of Holzman was a clear lesson in the idiocy of third-party politics. (I'm looking at you, Ralph.)
The Liberal Party once actually was liberal but ceased to be so, even endorsing Giuliani. Now, mercifully, it's defunct.
tomp
(9,512 posts)what's the difference?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)There are scores of thousands of Iraqis who'd like to explain the difference to you.
But they can't. They're dead.
And my guess is that, with a couple of Al Gore appointees on the Supreme Court, Citizens United would have been decided the other way.
I admit my bias here. I suffered through eighteen years of being represented by Al D'Amato instead of Liz Holzman, because of third-party politics. That's probably colored my outlook.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)To see it happen before I move on to the Great Beyond is one of my fondest hopes.
PuffedMica
(1,061 posts)I am so afraid that Dick Cheney will die a free man. He needs to be behind bars until the day he dies.
cyberpj
(10,794 posts)via it's connections for this to happen.
Maybe, after Poppy is dead.
But I doubt it.
Sorry.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)
Festivito
(13,452 posts)This article seems like a lul US to sleep, someone else will do it, move along there's nothing to worry about and nothing more for you to see article.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Ms. Holtzman would be among the first public figures, if not the first, to do so.
She has my admiration -- and loyalty.
peace frog
(5,609 posts)Not gonna happen, ever.
RickFromMN
(478 posts)We would have our own, internal civil war. I could see violence happening.
Will there ever come a day when this can happen?
One can hope. If I were a betting person, I would bet this will never happen.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Of course civil war is a last resort, but aren't we there?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)The US is too corrupt to really do anything. Maybe if other countries lead the way.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)Until then, criminal bankers agree to settlements instead of trials and convictions, torturers go on book tours, elections continue to be rigged, U.S. citizens continue to be arrested and killed with no evidence ever even presented, drones continue to attack any country desired, the press will continue to be owned by a few propagandist corporations, the entire financial system of predatory capitalism will be propped up and the 99% will continue to be robbed.
Uncle Joe
(58,364 posts)Thanks for the thread, kpete.
Martin Eden
(12,869 posts)Somebody asked what I'd like to say to him when he left office, and this is what I wrote:
I’d tell you to go fuck yourself
But that is much too kind
Because if you could perform that feat
You’d take pleasure in your behind
I’d like to say eat shit and die
But you deserve much more
You should suffer all the grief and pain
Of your misbegotten war
Though I can never make you feel
Or think, or understand
I’ll take solace when you hear your name
Cursed throughout the land
From inside a lonely prison cell
Dark and bare and cold
Where every day you pay for your crimes
Till you’re sick, heartbroken, and old
And when you finally leave the earth
You fucked over oh so well
If there is a God and afterlife
You’re going straight to hell.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)LOLZing!!
Anytime you write more political poems, just let me know, OK? You got a fan 
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
cbrer
(1,831 posts)If only we could make them real
The words you wrote so well
Then maybe we could make him feel
His quick descent to Hell!
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Granted, I know it takes a little time to work up a case but the investigation needs to begin ASAP.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Our government is a crime syndicate, who won't turn on each other.
Sanity Claws
(21,849 posts)This type of behavior was the result of illegal activity started decades earlier and never prosecuted.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)No one served any time, tho.
From Wiki:
The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.
On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."
Several investigations ensued, including those by the United States Congress and the three-man, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission.
Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.
In the end, fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger.
Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.
The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush,
who had been vice-president at the time of the affair.
Only one, Elliott Abrams, was convicted of two misdemeanors and subsequently pardoned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Contra
avebury
(10,952 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)usrname
(398 posts)Come November 7, 2012 and Obama wins the re-election, there will be subpoenas and warrants out for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Gonzales, Rove. Think of Nov 7, 2012 as the baptism day in the Godfather.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)backtomn
(482 posts)This WILL NOT result in anything.......PERIOD. Are you also waiting for that trial of Nixon......or over Iran-Contra ?? Please.
Obama3_16
(157 posts)this is not going to happen.
Ian62
(604 posts)The sentiments expressed here are admirable and the impact on the rule of law elsewhere is true. But it also impacts on the rule of law right here in the US.
I don't think there will be any significant prosecutions.
There might be the odd scapegoat - another Scooter Libby say. But he wasn't really punished - he walked away.
Obama has already moved to quash Spanish attempts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-united-states-still-the-land-of-the-free/2012/01/04/gIQAvcD1wP_print.html
What is required is accountability across the whole spectrum.
But nothing is happening.
Why aren't some of the banking CEO's in jail over the fraudulent mortgage bundling into MBS's and other scams?
Accountability :-
http://works.bepress.com/mary_ramirez/5/
http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/153530/7_of_the_nastiest_scams,_rip-offs_and_tricks_from_wall_street_crooks?page=5
