War Crimes

torture

Jonathan Turley and Rachel Maddow discuss the possibility of war crimes prosecutions for Bushies.

Share Button
13 Comments

13 Comments

  1. Swami  •  Jul 12, 2008 @10:34 am

    False hope. Jesus will return before Bush and his minions are ever held accountable.

    Evil triumphs when good men do nothing?..or something like that.

  2. felicity  •  Jul 12, 2008 @11:42 am

    I’ve just started reading Bugliosi’s book on why and how Bush must be tried for murder. I’ve read Helter-Skelter and Outrage by Bugliosi and judging from those books, his case should be air-tight.

  3. Shredder  •  Jul 12, 2008 @12:36 pm

    This defeatist attitude of “they will never be prosecuted” is just a self-fulfilling prophesy. We on the left constantly underestimate our power. This has to stop.

  4. Dave  •  Jul 12, 2008 @1:51 pm

    A public criminal trial of Bush / Cheney, in the US, would be a politcal nightmare and for political reasons, I’d be very, very surprised if it happened. If nothing else, they’d tie it up in a constitutional argument that the remedy for high crimes in office is impeachment, and that window has passed. (Then again, I’m not a lawyer.)

    I’d be just as happy if the International Criminal Court at The Hague issued criminal indictments for war crimes, making it impossible for them to leave the country, and putting the proper historical perspective on the Bush administration.

  5. shirt  •  Jul 12, 2008 @4:27 pm

    Swami, “Evil unoposed, wins!”. I agree. Do not ask what they gained in their madness, just tell them to stop their maddness.

    Shredder, I agree but we may need help. Do you think the German people would have had the strenght (gumption?) to prosecute their own war criminals? Perhaps, in a few horendous cases. The same is true for us. The worst of the rendition/torture cases may cause a few to be charged but we lack the gumption to look at this without devolving into arguements of inananity. I think the German people were actually thankfull the allied forces took charge in this regard. I think if NATO brought these charges in front of the world court and the cabal goes to a fair trail, then, wether guilty or innocent, our long brooding silence would end with our thanks.It would go a long way to recovering the splendid reputation we once had.

  6. felicity  •  Jul 12, 2008 @6:39 pm

    Nixon said that nothing a president does is illegal. I think that’s even more true now than in his day.

    I’m having a difficult time reading Bugliosi only because raging wears me out. I do know that Bush’s ‘trial’ would occur after he’s out of office. I’ll comment now and then as I learn more from Bugliosi, who, by the way as DA of LA lost only one case out of well over 100. His peers confirm that he is an amazing trial lawyer.

  7. moonbat  •  Jul 12, 2008 @10:33 pm

    I’ve long said that a War Crimes trial is the only way this country is going to come clean from the stain of the last 7 years. Impeachment is somewhat irrelevant, and the clock is running out on that score. Impeachment is mostly an internal thing, and while crimes were committed against the American people (Go, Dennis Kucinich), the real travesty IMO is how we behaved abroad.

    felicity – I’ve been intrigued by Bugliosi’s book, am glad you’re posting your take of it here.

    shredder – if we think we can’t impeach or try them for war crimes then we can’t. If we think we can, we have a shot.

    This was a fantastic exchange between the wonderful Rachel Maddow and Jonathan Turley – thanks maha.

    Glenzilla has more on this subject here. It’s one of his best columns.

  8. Swami  •  Jul 12, 2008 @11:29 pm

    Don’t forget the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah. The American military’s claim that it was used just for illumination purposes is about as lame as the Germans claiming that Zyklon B was only used on prisoners as a delousing agent.

  9. felicity  •  Jul 13, 2008 @2:18 pm

    Referring to the Iraq war as ‘Bush’s War,’ Bugliosi is building his case against Bush around the decisions Bush has made, the legislation he’s vetoed or refused to sign, the things he’s said, what he’s done, what he’s neglected to do, and most mind-boggling his reactions or lack of reactions to the untold suffering he’s seemingly intentionally caused thousands and thousands of people – all connected to that war.

    My take so far? If there was to be an indictment followed by a trial, Bush could legitimately plead insanity.

  10. felicity  •  Jul 13, 2008 @2:36 pm

    Sanity? Two months after 9/11 Bush told the gathered media, “All in all, it’s been a fabulous year for Laura and me.”

    In Jan ’05, “right in the midst of the hell on earth Bush created in Iraq – when carnage there was near its worst and American soldiers and Iraqi citizens were dying violent deaths every day – Bush, referring to himself and Laura – told thousands of partying supporters…’We’re having the time of our life.'”

  11. Sachem  •  Jul 14, 2008 @10:27 am
  12. moonbat  •  Jul 14, 2008 @6:02 pm

    felicity – I read a cute phrase the other day, applied to Cheney: “moral autism”, and it certainly applies to his front man, W. As David Neiwert wrote (I’m paraphrasing, and I’m too lazy to try and track down the exact place where I found it), it’s not pretty seeing the dead spot in someone’s soul.

    These people truly are monsters, but they’re only emblematic of the empathically-challenged far right, which they represent.

    Bush and Cheney are a symptom, an expression of a certain percentage of the population. They’re only its most visible expression. They’ll be gone soon, but the ugly sickness that put them in power will still remain.

  13. Marshall  •  Jul 16, 2008 @11:55 am

    Of course there will be war crimes trials. The only real question is when – it took 25 years for Pinochet.

    It’s pretty simple really – the mess won’t go away, the victims won’t go away, but the political protection the criminals have will go away.