Pelosi seems to be in favor of it, though Obama is walking the "need to look towards the future and not the past" line.

Personally, I think the best way to continue the goodwill that Obama brings for the US, is to erase and/or destroy as much of Bush's legacy as humanly possible.

I dont like the idea. I'm sure obama doesnt either because when he leaves office and if the next president is a republican, they'll do the same thing to him.

That's a shitty reason to avoid pursuing justice and doing the right thing. And Republicans would pursue him if they wanted to anyway, whether he'd done that to Bush or not. Do you think Republicans would have hesitated for one second about going after Clinton if they thought they put him in jail?

Obviously an investigation would have to be as beyond reproach as possible. They're going to claim a partisan witch hunt regardless. And if there is a good chance of indictment, then I'd allow the investigation to happen while keeping an objective distance from it.

I think it would almost as effective for courts in other countries to pass their own indictments, keeping these guys from ever traveling abroad ever again.

Well, at first I was going to say "How can they if there is nothing there to bring charges about?" but then I realized you did mention "Republicans"....

What's the crime?

Invading a sovereign country for starters.

I see. How many years did every president from Roosevelt to Clinton spend in prison, combined?

Anyone in favor of this is an idiot and a tool.

Good lord.

Based on how you phrased that, zero?

I'd add to Invasion of a sovereign country -

Lying to the American people
Violations of the Geneva Convention

Does your mommy still give you spankings?

I still don't see how that qualifies as a crime.


Now you're gunning for EVERY American politician, not just presidents.


Now, that's a serious allegation. What's the basis for it?

?

What's so hard to understand? Invading a sovereign country is not a crime in the U.S. It is within the president's power under the Constitution, with Congress's authorization.

Authorization of torture.

GW violated his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed", violated United States law by invading the sovereign country of Iraq in violation of the United Nations Charter.

No, she died last year.

Clinton lied and was publicly humiliated. Nixon lied and was forced to resign his presidency. Sure, all politicians lie. But it's the scope of the lie that's the issue.

Right. So there will be a long and drawn out legal argument over what is torture. And then, let's say the Supreme Court agrees that water boarding is torture, and that Bush had every reason to believe that it was torture (which, personally, I don't think will happen). There's still the argument that the protection of the U.S. required it. I don't buy that argument, but I am not so sure about the courts.

I agree with Obama - let's not focus on the past. There is not a lot of precedent in the U.S. for going after prior presidents, and the chance of actually accomplishing something is slim, while the political capital wasted will be tremendous.

Now, if some overseas courts want to engage in this, then more power to them. Good luck enforcing subpoenas, though.

Indeed. It was difficult just getting Jack Bauer in front of a committee.

Actually it was rather easy - all they had to do was let a few African kids get green cards.

Sorry if I spoiled it for everyone.

Waterboarding is torture. US soldiers were prosecuted for waterboarding during Vietnam. That precedent exists. Sleep deprivation is also torture, although probably less likely to lead to criminal prosecution, certainly not on its own.

Bush not believing or knowing that it was torture is irrelevant. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, as I'm sure Groucho would confirm.

And the argument that US protection required it is without merit. Torture does not work. It produces unreliable information and is among the least effective interrogation techniques available.

The bottom line is that it is a war crime.



If overseas courts indict, then neither a subpoena nor extradition (which will never happen) are completely necessary. It would be enough that these guys can never set foot in those countries without being immediately arrested.

Wow, what a non-starter of a case. The torture argument is the only one that has any merit behind it.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing one way or the other here. I believe torture is wrong (whether or not it works is irrelevant to me) and should be illegal. I also believe water boarding is torture. My point is that the chances of Bush actually getting convicted are extremely slim. Why get bogged down in all this and waste time and effort, when Obama supposedly has much bigger plans?


Right. Which they won't.

I dont think they can get Bush for something he has done. And Bush is lucky cause currently for about the next 4 years there are way bigger problems to solve.

Does Bush deserve it? Oh yes!!!.....though its not gonna happen.

Starting tomorrow afternoon, no one will give a fuck about Bush anymore.