If Obama can execute a US citizen for being in al Qaeda w/o a trial, why can't he prosecute Wall St?

[yurbud]

Does anyone really want to claim this al-Awlaki was a greater threat to the US than the real harm done to us through the intentional fraud on Wall Street?

The scalp of one of the CEO's of the hedge funds or banks than tanked our economy would impress me more and more importantly, do more to protect us, than killing the top TEN leaders of al Qaeda.

If we are going to throw due process out the window, at least do so based on the magnitude of damage the offender caused.

Goldman Sachs, JPMorganChase, B of A and the like have probably done more damage to us than al Qaeda did on 9/11, the BP oil spill, and a dozen of the worst hurricanes combined.

It not about revenge or class warfare, it's about protecting us from them doing it AGAIN--even if prosecutions and prison sentences have no effect on other future financial sociopaths, at least those who create this crash would not be free to engineer the next one for a few years.

And the president and his Attorney General don't need the permission of the Republicans to do that.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Are you more afraid of thieves or murderers?

[villager]

2. well, when the thieves murder a whole economy....

n/t

[ThePhilosopher04]

3. Wall Street Thieves ... and it's not close!

Terrorism is so miniscule a problem in this country as to be a non-issue, other than the fear of it, which is of our own making in my view ... the thieving bastards on Wall Street kill every single day, in all parts the U.S. and around the world ... they are the problem, not some two-bit face on a wanted poster who most likely is a CIA concoction to begin with.

[ClassWarrior]

13. Wow, that question reveals a clueless perspective.

NGU.

[Exilednight]

36. Your odds of dying from poverty are much greater than dying from

a terrorists attack. On average, 1.5 million Americans die in poverty each year. I'd be willing to bet that not half that many people have died in terrorists since 1776.

[DirkGently]

39. That question bears a further look. Who has actually hurt us more?

Al Qaeda attacked with a handful of people, on a shoestring budget. The results were horrendous. However, what is the supposed ongoing threat? Is Al Quaeda going to destroy the United States? Take over the country? Kill millions?

Wall Street banks and investment firms destroyed the worldwide economy, destroyed themselves in the process, extorted trillions in taxpayer money to save themselves, then paid themselves bonuses to which they loudly declared themselves entitled, and proceeded to successfully lobby against any kind of meaningful reform to prevent them doing the same thing again. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes, and pensions, and the economy went into a freefall from which there is no sign we will soon recover.

We turned our country upside down on the basis of the 9/11 attacks, which were carried out by a few dozen people, for a few hundred thousand dollars, at most. We entered two costly, ill-advised wars. Instituted a cascade of anti-civil-liberty security measures and a gargantuan domestic security apparatus, and now spend a large part of our national discourse arguing about the mistakes we made, the money we've spent, and of course, whether Muslims are allowed to have community centers in New York.

How "scared" should we really be about Al Qaeda at this point? Beyond their initial attack, they've accomplished little. Moreover, it's pretty clear it's impossible to destroy everyone in the world that might ever consider making a terrorist attack on the U.S. It's become pretty clear that all the ongoing damage from "terrorism" is damage we continue to inflict on ourselves.

Banks and lending institutions, on the other hand, continue to wreak havoc. After being caught faking all their Assignments of Mortgage, they briefly retreated, and limited themselves to hiring counter-espionage firms to smear their critics and blocking all efforts at reform. Now their gearing up to start a new tidal wave of foreclosures, provided they either survive the lawsuits filed against them, or get us to bail them out again.

Is it possible that being "afraid" of the wrong things all along is our biggest problem?

[ClassWarrior]

40. Who are easier to catch? Thieves or murderers?

NGU.

[BlueIris]

4. Or force the insurance companies to do their fucking jobs.

Or...do anything anymore.

[pnwmom]

5. 50 state attorneys-general are considering prosecution.

States regulate the banks.

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. Not true. Those state's AGs are now considering a joint settlement

instead of pressing for criminal charges.
Only New York and one other state have refused to accept the Admins. call for a "settlement".
This fact was the subject of several lengthy thread discussions very recently.

on edit: oh, here, found current thread on Cal. withdrawing from the foreclosure probe because the settlement is too lenient.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5012203

[yurbud]

10. New York and California--those are pretty big dogs to pull out. Maybe that will unravel the whole

thing, and force the Justice Department to do their jobs.

[chill_wind]

21. +1 And any good guys pushing back at that

are being dicked with. Let's continue to strongly hope NYAG keeps doubling down

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1808188&mesg_id=1808188

[pnwmom]

32. Both statements are true, since they are "considering"

either prosecuting or settling.

[boppers]

6. Would I be more unhappy about a crappy home loan interest rate or being killed?

Would you prefer death to refinancing your rate or moving?

[yurbud]

11. more like would you prefer a tiny chance of being killed or pretty big one of losing your job...

losing your house, and being told you had to give up a decent public education for your kids, your Social Security, Medicare, and if you are a government worker, probably that pension too.

To push the al Qaeda analogy a bit further, if we treated them the way we treat Wall Street, we would give them a bail out for their losses on 9/11, and let them pick the head of the CIA, Defense Department, and National Security advisor--and then say we admire their terrorism savvy.

[sabbat hunter]

8. what would the criminal charges be against them?

I agree that they are 'thieves' but do come up with actual criminal charges is not an easy thing to do. They used the rules of the system, manipulated them to get their ill gotten gain.

[yurbud]

12. the charges would be more substantial than those against a lot of these

Al Qaeda guys.

Of the few that have gotten trials, the most alarming charges against them often turn out to be bullshit, like the so-called dirty bomber Jose Padilla.

[leveymg]

9. Considering the damage that Wall St did to America, send in the Marines.

The hedge fund operators and banksters should be frog marched under armed guard to Riker's Island.

[NorthCarolina]

14. Because you don't assault the hand that feeds you. nt

[YellowCosmicSun]

15. More buffoonery.

[ClassWarrior]

16. No content? Just a personal attack on the OP?

NGU.

[ClarkUSA]

17. How is what he said "a personal attack" given he was clearly speaking of the ridiculous OP content?

[ClassWarrior]

33. Twice. Slick.

NGU.

[yurbud]

42. do you mean killing alleged potential terrorists?

[harun]

18. Because they pay his bills.

[ClarkUSA]

19. Prove it.

[Mr Deltoid]

20. Here

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

[ClarkUSA]

22. The University of California? What'd they do wrong? That's hardly proof of what harun claimed.

[Mr Deltoid]

23. You didnt notice Goldmann Sachs?

Or JP Morgan? Or Citigroup? How convenient .

[ClarkUSA]

24. You didn't notice Google, Harvard, Columbia & Stanford Universities?

How convenient.

Where's the proof of harun's claim? Is that the best case you can make?

Right now, you'd be laughed out of a court of law.

[Mr Deltoid]

26. Yes I did but that isnt what this is about

You are attempting to change the subject.

A contribution from a university, or Google, does not cancel out the fact Obama is bankrolled by the very people who collapsed the economy.

[ClarkUSA]

27. List the names of all the individual employees then prove with evidence that they are all guilty...

... of being "the very people who collapsed the economy" via their individual actions.

[Mr Deltoid]

28. You are spinning like a top

[ClarkUSA]

29. In other words, you have no proof of what you and harun claim.

Gotcha.

[Mr Deltoid]

30. I posted the proof

And you are doing a very poor job of spinning it away.

When you make impossible demands like " List the names of all the individual employees" it makes you look desperate.

[ClarkUSA]

31. How is it proof of what harun and you claim?

[harun]

49. > 1,000,000 from Goldman Sach's isn't an accounting error.

It is to get what they want.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polichick]

47. Yep, that's what it is - desperate spin.

[totodeinhere]

25. Apples and oranges. n/t

[polichick]

34. He seems to have decided that "justice for all" is a quaint idea that doesn't apply...

...to the wealthy and well-connected.

[golfguru]

37. That will happen as soon as Wall streeters start flying planes

into tall buildings, or or caught bombing civilians.

[jefferson_dem]

38. Unrec.

Idiocy, on multiple levels.

[Bake]

52. So it's "idiocy" to wonder why Obama doesen't go after the banksters who tanked the economy?

The very ones who threaten his re-election? That ought to get your attention, at least.

I think it's a very good question. Why CAN we go after terrorists but not banksters? Fraud isn't that hard to prove.

Bake

[JoePhilly]

41. And why can't Obama make a Unicorn that farts clean energy!!!!

[polichick]

45. Silliness like your post does not distract from the fact that the prez isn't going after...

Wall Street criminals - it just makes your agenda obvious.

[ClassWarrior]

48. .

[Kurovski]

43. Osama BL did say he planned on the economic destruction of america.

He predicted America would drain it's resources and energy trying to protect itself.

[polichick]

46. True - he certainly had our lame politicians figured out...

Unfortunately there weren't enough clear-headed citizens to stop them.

[JI7]

44. huh ?

[treestar]

50. These are so entirely two different things

A specific person known to be plotting for AQ vs. the vaguest of generalities "prosecute Wall Street." What does that even mean? A street can't be a criminal defendant.

[ClassWarrior]

51. Seems no one has an answer, other than to say that the idea is "silly."

Mighty thin ice, that.

NGU.

[Sheepshank]

53. Bankers are now Al Q, but not really because one isn't prosecuted and one is killed?

I don't understand the question.

Drawing a parallel for killing vs. prosecution from two different career paths....isn't making any sense to me. No if you wanted to ask about killing both, I'd have response.

unrec for dumbness.

[Phx_Dem]

54. Because they didn't break any laws. Congress repealed all the regulations

that would have kept them from doing what they did.