Prosecution of the Bush Administration

[bascule]

Is it just me, or does the prosecution of the Bush administration actually seem to have a positive trend nowadays?

 

I say this primarily because of the political and media buzz surrounding the recent release of the "Bush torture documents".

 

Obama has expressed that he might be open to a fairly conducted bipartisan investigation of the Bush Adminstration. That's certainly more than we've been hearing out of him before.

 

Are the winds changing, and Washington might actually begin to investigate what happened under Bush?

[Mr Skeptic]

I hope so. Unaccountability is a dangerous thing.

[CaptainPanic]

It's a good thing to admit that something wrong has happened in the past. Denying, or ignoring torture on the long term might affect the credibility of the US government. Approving of torture would be even worse.

 

It's not very credible to fight some wars in the name of Freedom while actually torturing the enemy.

[iNow]

There's nothing wrong with letting the truth come out. Nobody is above the law. This isn't about right versus left, nor democrat versus republican. This is about legal versus illegal, and right versus wrong.

 

We prosecuted others who performed these same activities on our people (the Japanese in WWII, for example) so it's rather clear where we stand on these practices. Current circumstances and declarations of wars on terror do not change our history nor our standards. These practices were previously illegal, and just because a couple of unscrupulous lawyers found micro-loopholes allowing us to temporarily ignore the Geneva convention does not mean what we did was suddenly legal and a-okay.

 

We should look into it. We should do like we did with the 9/11 Commission. Put out the full report, and move forward. Sweeping the issue under the rug will only prolong it.

[Mokele]

I'm actually wary of efforts to prosecute. While accountability is nice, I'm afraid that dragging this into the spotlight will divert attention and effort from actually getting productive stuff done like fixing healthcare and the economy. These sorts of investigations seem to have a way of becoming all-consuming shitstorms, IME.

[jackson33]

Senator Carl Levin D-Mn. to me is a despicable partisan individual , BUT on Fox News Sunday (4/26/09) he made a very interesting comment; That very low level military personnel were convicted of crimes (torture), where no higher ups were. Continuing to paraphrase, those convicted if acting under orders were unjustly convicted. Since I do believe law is the foundation for the American System to work...If following orders and those orders were known by both the executive and Congress leaders, I really don't like the following...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Beginning in 2004, accounts of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including torture, sodomy[1] and homicide[2] of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) came to public attention. These acts were committed by personnel of the 372nd Military Police Company of the United States Army together with additional US governmental agencies.[3]

As revealed by the 2004 Taguba Report, a criminal investigation by the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command had already been underway since 2003 where many soldiers of the 320th Military Police Battalion had been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with prisoner abuse. In 2004 articles describing the abuse, including pictures showing military personnel abusing prisoners, came to public attention, when a 60 Minutes II news report (April 28) and an article by Seymour M. Hersh in The New Yorker magazine (posted online on April 30 and published days later in the May 10 issue) reported the story.[4] Janis Karpinski, the commander of Abu Ghraib, demoted for her lack of oversight regarding the abuse, estimated later that 90% of detainees in the prison were innocent.[5]

Lynndie England and Charles Graner posing with prisoners ordered to form a human pyramid

The United States Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and seven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and September 2005, seven soldiers were convicted in courts martial, sentenced to federal prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner, and his former fiancée, Specialist Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005. The commanding officer at the prison, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, was demoted to the rank of Colonel on May 5, 2005. Col. Karpinski has denied knowledge of the abuses, claiming that the interrogations were authorized by her superiors and performed by subcontractors, and that she was not even allowed entry into the interrogation rooms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

----------------------------------------------------------

 

While I don't believe any President of in fact a Governor should be held accountable for government related decisions, or impeached or those that advised him/her be held accountable for 'OPINIONS/ADVICE' when asked to offer, I do believe those that follow those orders are equally exempt. Mistakes have to be expected and no one person is going to make an acceptable decision to all the people anytime in his/her public life. Historically, leaders were dethroned, jailed, exiled or simply killed, which I see no reason in going back to...Along the same line, advisor's or even qualified leaders will become increasingly reluctant to come forward, which IMO is already a problem.

 

On the thread theme; Since the issue has become a public issue and has gone political, there may be no other alternative than a 'Special Investigation', but I can guarantee you today that no decision of that committee or special prosecutor will be the final word/acceptable for those with preset motivations and no person those wanting revenge on, will ever see Court Action or punished in any sense of the word. Every President since Washington has been accused of some form of misconduct while in office and several by the International Community.

[Pangloss]

The Obama administration's one and only investigation of the previous administration appears to be about to die a meager death, with the Justice Department investigation into Bush lawyers (who authorized the use of coercive methods that were previously and subsequently deemed to be torture) concluding without an indictment.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jseitMBY7vwNpuvEsb1zvkvaVxrQD980DRC80

[bascule]

The Obama administration's one and only investigation of the previous administration appears to be about to die a meager death, with the Justice Department investigation into Bush lawyers (who authorized the use of coercive methods that were previously and subsequently deemed to be torture) concluding without an indictment.

 

Obama's main argument has been that he wants a non-partisan Congressional investigation

[JohnB]

While I don't believe any President of in fact a Governor should be held accountable for government related decisions, or impeached or those that advised him/her be held accountable for 'OPINIONS/ADVICE' when asked to offer, I do believe those that follow those orders are equally exempt.

NO!

 

If those who give the orders are not accountable, then disaster follows. If someone has the authority to issue orders, then they are responsible for the results of those orders. If the orders are illegal, then criminal charges should follow.

 

Likewise those who offer advice must be aware that there may be consequences if the advice is followed. However, charges for bad advice is a bit much unless such advice was intended to facilitate illegal acts or to circimvent the law.

 

As for those who follow those orders, trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo settled that particular question.

 

The defense "I was following orders" is no defense, not then, not now, not ever.

 

Giving exemptions for giving or following illegal orders will get the US (and any other nation) nothing but more My Lais.

 

People must be held accountable for their actions, without exception. For laws to work, nobody can be above them. Ever.

[jackson33]

John; Sorry, I simply disagree...As the leader of Germany, Hitler gave some terribly unacceptable orders, many did not follow and were killed. No doubt the same was true (in those days) for allied troops, setting up defense for following illegal orders under International Law or practices IMO. All this is based on that those orders DID in fact come the TOP, not that a subordinate along the chain of command altered this intent or meaning of the established policy or orders. For example; Any action in combat can have the order 'At all cost', 'with out exception' to take that hill, destroy that bridge or any number of actions that later can be judged NOT to have been necessary. Is the commander at any level then subject 'after the fact' responsible for anything conceived malpractice of command and/or his subordinates for following those orders?

 

My post was in defense of the least guilty of individuals, if in fact such an order came from the Commander In Chief or his administration, passed down through the command and followed by those actually punished. Then back to 'Command', somebody is always responsible for an order, for it's implication/results whether in the end righteous, just or what have you. The victor, through history has always judged the outcomes, determining what was correct or not. Keep in mind the USSR was possibly guilty of as many atrocities as Germany, at least the numbers of deaths involved. Emperor Showa (Hirohito) of Japan, sanctioned the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941, yet remained in office until his death in 1989.

-------------------------

The attack on Pearl Harbor, sanctioned by Emperor Shōwa on December 1 1941, occurred on December 7 (December 8 in Japan) and the Japanese were successful in their surprise attack. Although the Japanese won the battle, the attack proved a long-term strategic disaster that actually did relatively little lasting damage to the U.S. military and provoked the United States to retaliate with full commitment against Japan and its allies. At the same time as the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese army attacked colonial Hong Kong and occupied it for nearly four years.

The attack on Pearl Harbor, sanctioned by Emperor Shōwa on December 1 1941, occurred on December 7 (December 8 in Japan) and the Japanese were successful in their surprise attack. Although the Japanese won the battle, the attack proved a long-term strategic disaster that actually did relatively little lasting damage to the U.S. military and provoked the United States to retaliate with full commitment against Japan and its allies. At the same time as the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese army attacked colonial Hong Kong and occupied it for nearly four years.

-----------------------

 

Hirohito (裕仁 ?), also known as Emperor Shōwa (昭和天皇 ,Shōwa tennō?), (29 April 1901 – 7 January 1989) was the 124th Emperor of Japan according to the traditional order, reigning from 25 December 1926 until his death in 1989.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Sh%C5%8Dwa

------------------------

 

The point of my argument; If as 'Commander In Chief' (Obama today, Bush 43, Truman, Roosevelt) who have made questionable decisions were subject to punishment, or those that adise the Commander (Chief of Staff or any legal advisor) are to be held accountable for advice or decisions, that person or those advisors, could not recieve honest opinion or base a decision on what is felt to be in the best interest of their Nation (opposed to legal/moral interpration of the International Community). The duties of the President, particularly in times of war are to protect the Country. Since in normal times these duties also include protecting the Contitution and Law or the US, I'll remind you all those laws have different meaning to different people and cannot always be 'argued' before actions may be required.

 

Since, this should lead to the argument, that I feel the President (Govenors) are in some manner above the law, let me clear this up now; YES, IMO...when it involves their duties in governing. Those individuals punished for following orders, IF FROM THE ADMINITRATION, have what's called 'mittigating circumstances' in sentencing which according to their testimony was denied...

[iNow]

I feel the President (Govenors) are in some manner above the law, let me clear this up now; YES, IMO...when it involves their duties in governing.

What a disgusting sentiment which completely undermines the foundation of a society governed by laws. Those laws mean NOTHING if they are not applied equally to all. There is NO reason why a leader... whether president, governor, or other... cannot protect their people and govern their society within the confines of the laws they've been put in place to uphold.

[Mokele]

If as 'Commander In Chief' (Obama today, Bush 43, Truman, Roosevelt) who have made questionable decisions were subject to punishment, or those that adise the Commander (Chief of Staff or any legal advisor) are to be held accountable for advice or decisions, that person or those advisors, could not recieve honest opinion or base a decision on what is felt to be in the best interest of their Nation (opposed to legal/moral interpration of the International Community).

 

This is beyond wrong - this sentiment is absolutely contrary to every aspect of a free and just society.

 

If the President is so cowardly and weak that they cannot stomach the thought of being held responsible for their actions and orders, they should be thrown out, immediately. A fundamental principle of our society is that YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. It doesn't matter if those actions affect 1 person or 100 million, if you decide and act (or give orders to act), you are responsible for that decision.

 

How far do you extend this twisted logic, jackson33? Should a CEO who knowingly issued orders to market products they knew to be unsafe/dangerous not be held accountable?

 

OMG, that might make the President's job, like, Hard and stuff!

 

If you want an executive branch without accountability, you want a dictatorship.

[jackson33]

Mokele/iNow; It's my belief, that the Constitution allows certain decision making to the Executive, as well as the Legislature and Judicial Branches. As Commander in Chief, where the Nations security is involved, he/she has certain obligations that go beyond the law of normal times. Precedence has been set many times in our history for such decisions. As said, so long as these decisions are with in these scopes, including the need to govern or maintain control then other laws are secondary to the procedures to make those decisions or their implementation. Of course the President, can't just go on a shooting spree, rape his staff, rob a bank or anything outside the scope of the job. I guaranty you the 'Secret Service' daily breaks hundreds of laws, while protecting certain peoples safety.

 

Secondly; I don't believe every citizen of this country, especially in the world, has the right to question these decisions (repeat-under authority to make) for personal disagreements.

 

Thirdly; The power of the Executive to pardon, IMO was established to cover those that do follow orders and are convicted of some crime. Again opinion, but I feel the founders knew decisions would not always be acceptable to the general public, gave cause to hide (executive privilege) and the resolution for clearing the table.

 

I really don't understand this concern to prosecute the Executive or the advisor's/legal staff of an elected official, when admittedly the job being done was under that authority. Accountability can't be the judgment of media or opinionated individuals, but through 'due process' for any individual, including the President. It's simply not going to happen for anything that falls under duties and for more reasons than I have time to explain.

 

My original post was for what I saw as unjustly convicted subordinates, that in all probability WERE following orders, whether from the Administration or somewhere down the chain, had their reputations destroyed, served time, demoted or dishonorably discharged with those consequences...

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, the law grants additional wartime powers. No, that does not mean that they don't need to follow the law, only that different laws apply.

[Pangloss]

I feel the President (Govenors) are in some manner above the law, let me clear this up now; YES, IMO...when it involves their duties in governing. [/quote']What a disgusting sentiment which completely undermines the foundation of a society governed by laws.

 

Calling someone's opinion "disgusting" is not a productive or egalitarian form of discourse. Please refrain.

[Mokele]

It's my belief, that the Constitution allows certain decision making to the Executive, as well as the Legislature and Judicial Branches. As Commander in Chief, where the Nations security is involved, he/she has certain obligations that go beyond the law of normal times. Precedence has been set many times in our history for such decisions.

 

Yes, but there are limits. What you argue for is unlimited power.

 

I don't believe every citizen of this country, especially in the world, has the right to question these decisions (repeat-under authority to make) for personal disagreements.

 

Our entire system of government is based on the idea that the government is answerable to the people.

 

Any government which is *not* answerable to the people is inherently tyrannical, and should be overthrown, violently if necessary.

 

The power of the Executive to pardon, IMO was established to cover those that do follow orders and are convicted of some crime. Again opinion, but I feel the founders knew decisions would not always be acceptable to the general public, gave cause to hide (executive privilege) and the resolution for clearing the table.

 

Flat-out wrong. Read a history book.

 

I really don't understand this concern to prosecute the Executive or the advisor's/legal staff of an elected official, when admittedly the job being done was under that authority. Accountability can't be the judgment of media or opinionated individuals, but through 'due process' for any individual, including the President. It's simply not going to happen for anything that falls under duties and for more reasons than I have time to explain.

 

Which is why we should put them on trial. If they were justified, then the trial will find that.

 

My original post was for what I saw as unjustly convicted subordinates, that in all probability WERE following orders, whether from the Administration or somewhere down the chain, had their reputations destroyed, served time, demoted or dishonorably discharged with those consequences...

 

Cry me a freaking river. Soldiers are not robots - they have the ability to refuse an order they consider unethical or illegal.

 

By your logic, the individual Nazis bore no responsibility, when in fact the willful capitulation of the populace is what allowed the atrocities in the first place.

 

"I was just following orders" isn't just a worthless defense, it's a complete disavowal that they even are a person, or anything more than a meat-robot.

[Pangloss]

Inability to prosecute an elected official does not directly equate to an inability to make that person "answerable to the people". The difference is one of degree -- is the fact that you have redress via the ballot sufficient to offset abuse during office?

 

The problem with answering that question "no" is that that reaction is subject to political whim. This was a direct causal factor in the downfall of the Roman Republic -- the annual prosecution of the previous year's officials, even to the extent of becoming public entertainment devoid of any reference to the social contract.

 

Which is not to say that such would necessarily happen here, but it does emphasize the point that such things must be carefully weighed and balanced by law and objective judgment.

[Mokele]

The problem with answering that question "no" is that that reaction is subject to political whim. This was a direct causal factor in the downfall of the Roman Republic (the annual prosecution of the previous year's officials, even to the extent of becoming public entertainment devoid of any reference to the social contract).

 

Agreed, but there is just as much, if not more, danger in the other extreme, which asserts that the government or executive branch are above the law entirely.

[Pangloss]

I agree.

[jackson33]

Mokele; Certainly the founders had other reasons for granting 'Pardoning Power' to the Executive and most certainly error in Presidential Decision, would not or could not be explicitly mentioned, then or now. I have read several US/World History books along with several on Constitutional Law, which is where my opinions stem from. Like anything in Law, there are no less than two sides of any law, including 'Murder' where under some circumstances the definition of murder itself is justified. My favorite reference to the US Constitution, with explanations, and an icon on my computer;

---------------------------------

The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html

 

Constitution Text..

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

--------------------------------

 

If I have failed to distinguish between duties of the Executive or their powers as related to those powers ONLY, I apologize. No elected official is literally above the law, that the law they act on are above the regular citizen and are there by legal...IMO.

 

Military Service today and in my day are no longer the same, but when I was in the Air Force

57-61, we followed orders with out question. As for the Germans in WWII, the Russians or the Japanese Head of State listed above, NO I don't think the all those that were prosecuted, hung or spent their lives in prison were justifiable, nor do I think the two Pilots that bombed Japanese Towns, Truman or any number of involved persons would be responsible to Japan or Germany, if the US has lost that war. Something in my mind says this is revenge and revenge by a victor over the already loser of a war.

 

When one administration leaves office (2008), over 2 million employees of government do not and are then part of a new administration. J Edgar Hoover, heading the FBI, went through many Administration and managed to maintain sovereignty from the Federal Government. Today with all the Security Departments, including the FBI, their integrity could be at risk by prosecuting former administrations over what in in most cases are purely vindictive motives. Said another way and indicated before, prosecution of any Administration is not going to happen in this country, so long as were working under the US Constitution. Executive privilege doesn't end with the term and no President, especially Obama, is going to give up one link in that process...

[Mokele]

Blah blah blah, more of your typical dodging of the question.

 

You asserted, and I quote "I feel the President (Govenors) are in some manner above the law, let me clear this up now; YES"

 

Can you actually offer up any defense of this, or any response to our objections? Because so far, you've failed utterly to do anything but dodge the question.

 

Justify your position.

[bascule]

I feel the President (Govenors) are in some manner above the law

 

I think the powers (and limits thereof) of the President are explicitly defined in Article II, which further states that the President should be removed from office if convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

The Constitution certainly doesn't paint a picture of a person who is above the law. It says if the President breaks the law they should be removed from office.

[jackson33]

I think the powers (and limits thereof) of the President are explicitly defined in Article II, which further states that the President should be removed from office if convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

The Constitution certainly doesn't paint a picture of a person who is above the law. It says if the President breaks the law they should be removed from office.

 

 

bascule; I agree, and offer the following of what has progressed over the years toward a far too powerful Executive. Also a good history of when Presidents have suspended the Constitution...

How many times have I said the Executive has no authority to legislate...

----------------------------------------.

Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to force a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution.

 

http://sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html

-----------------------------------

 

As said;

 

"When one administration leaves office (2008), over 2 million employees of government do not and are then part of a new administration. J Edgar Hoover, heading the FBI, went through many Administration and managed to maintain sovereignty from the Federal Government. Today with all the Security Departments, including the FBI, their integrity could be at risk by prosecuting former administrations over what in in most cases are purely vindictive motives. Said another way and indicated before, prosecution of any Administration is not going to happen in this country, so long as were working under the US Constitution. Executive privilege doesn't end with the term and no President, especially Obama, is going to give up one link in that process"...

 

 

-------------------

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

-----------------

I suppose treason, high crimes and misdemeanors and especially Bribery can be involved, when dealing with other governments, but those words were meant to the persons interest/benifit, not the Nation. I have no idea how much US Federal Aid has been given, to bend to diplomatic compliance. On the other hand, Nixon, got in trouble trying to maintain power (resigned), Andrew Johnson basically challenged Congressional Authority and Clinton simply lied to Federal Authorities (both impeached, neither convicted or resigned). Many other Presidents, if not all, had committed any number of minor offenses, NOT in line with their duties.

 

 

Mokele; Those poor little babies, following orders, for the most part were barely of age, lower ranked gullible rookies and IMO really had to be following somebodies orders. With the exception of a death of an inmate (I don't know the circumstances) most other crimes inferred, for first time offenders in the US would get 30 days community service, records expunged and gone on about their lives. Frankly, when I first saw those pictures, my thoughts turned to porn sites which were mild to whats available on line.

[Pangloss]

Blah blah blah' date=' more of your typical dodging of the question.

 

You asserted, and I quote "I feel the President (Govenors) are in some manner above the law, let me clear this up now; YES"

 

Can you actually offer up any defense of this, or any response to our objections? Because so far, you've failed utterly to do anything but dodge the question.

 

Justify your position.

[/quote']

 

I think the powers (and limits thereof) of the President are explicitly defined in Article II' date=' which further states that the President should be removed from office if convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

The Constitution certainly doesn't paint a picture of a person who is above the law. It says if the President breaks the law they should be removed from office.[/quote']

 

(Pangloss sings) "One of these things... is... not... like... the o-ther, one of these things just does-n't be-long."

 

Well said, bascule. Reason > rudeness.

[The Bear's Key]

...is the fact that you have redress via the ballot sufficient to offset abuse during office?

 

The problem with answering that question "no" is that that reaction is subject to political whim. This was a direct causal factor in the downfall of the Roman Republic -- the annual prosecution of the previous year's officials, even to the extent of becoming public entertainment devoid of any reference to the social contract.

Perspective.

 

The Romans didn't have anything near our checks and balances, a legal system of innocent until proven guilty, nor an obsessively complex separation of powers.

 

So there'd be no annual (or four-year) prosecutions. I usually hear that crap from media politicals who'd like to avoid examination of unscrupulous activities.

 

Politicians just can't do what you've said. They're unable to prosecute, and so are the courts...without evidence -- thus the only harm done is to the politicians/accusers who'll end up looking foolish if clearly there's no evidence of wrongdoing.

 

But let's suppose they did find evidence, really bad offenses to the Constitution, wouldn't you say that doing the investigations have merit?