Should Obama go after Wall St. or Bush/Cheney war criminals as aggressively as Snowden?

[yurbud]

Chris Hedges made me think of this.

“Along with all the other rising inequalities we’ve become so familiar with — in income, in wealth, in access to politicians — we confront now a fundamental inequality of accountability.

We can have a just society whose guiding ethos is accountability and punishment, where both black kids dealing weed in Harlem and investment bankers peddling fraudulent securities on Wall Street are forced to pay for their crimes, or we can have a just society whose guiding ethos is forgiveness and second chances, one in which both Wall Street banks and foreclosed households are bailed out, in which both insider traders and street felons are allowed to rejoin polite society with the full privileges of citizenship intact.

But we cannot have a just society that applies the principle of accountability to the powerless and the principle of forgiveness to the powerful. This is the America in which we currently reside.”

http://www.alternet.org/media/how-inbred-elites-are-tearing-america-apart

I would especially like to hear from the DUers who have said the dogged pursuit of Snowden is appropriate and necessary.

21 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Wall Street\'s fraud that broke the world economy and/or Bush/Cheney\\\'s war crimes deserve pursuit far more than Snowden\\\'s leaks
	20 (95%)
	Snowden\'s leaks deserve more pursuit than anything Wall Street or Bush/Cheney did
	0 (0%)
	All of them deserve equal prosecution
	1 (5%)
	none of them did anything particularly wrong
	0 (0%)
	other
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. Oh hells yes. Fuck Wall Street! n/t

[yurbud]

3. I get the impression that the Obama administration would rather go after every jaywalker and

sidewalk spitter before they lift a finger to go after the global economic terrorists.

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. Heh...it would appear that way, wouldn't it? n/t

[leftstreet]

2. Yes!

[Recursion]

4. How "aggressive" are they actually being about Snowden?

I'm seeing much more bluster on this board than from the government.

[1-Old-Man]

5. They apparently put on enough pressure to force the landing of a President's aircraft.

Sounds like a pretty aggressive thing to do to me.

[Recursion]

6. The plane had a mechanical problem

People make all kinds of wild guesses about why Austria did what they did.

[HooptieWagon]

10. bullshit.

[sibelian]

13. Possibly the president of Bolivia can shed some light on the subject. nt.

[morningfog]

19. Now that is just inaccurate.

[sabrina 1]

23. Lol!

[think]

26. Denial is not a good state to get stuck in.

[treestar]

16. +1

[msongs]

7. a president does not usually "go after" his peers nt

[HooptieWagon]

8. He should. He won't...they're his buds.

[meow2u3]

11. Obama shouldn't stop at Wall Street banksters and Cheney

He should also go after the ringleaders bankrolling the Tea Party, especially the Koch Bros. and Art Pope; the teabagger state legislatures hellbent on passing dictatorial, unconstututional laws and voter suppression tactics; and the RW SCOTUS RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia) who use extraconstitutional excuses to overturn the will of the people.

[yurbud]

12. good point

[jazzimov]

14. Voted Other - because this is a Push Poll

and has no basis in realty. There is no comparison to these issues.

[treestar]

15. Leave it up to experienced prosecutors

They will consider the time/cost analysis and ability to meet the burden of proof.

[Luminous Animal]

17. Too late for that. Memories fade, fabricated stories confirmed, and things get shredded.

The fall gals will be those who make $40,000 a year.

[Octafish]

18. Great question, yurbud.

Just-us. Heh heh heh.

[limpyhobbler]

20. k/r Good question. nt

[Corruption Inc]

21. Maybe if Warren was POTUS we'd see a return to law, ethics and regulation

Until then it's everyone for themselves as institutions such as the Justice Department are just tools used by the 1%.

[burnodo]

25. Yeah, maybe

I think if she actually was seen as a threat to the establishment, she'd die in a plane crash.

[yurbud]

22. I guess our right wing "Democrat" friends took the day off

or their employer didn't want to pay them over time to vote in a poll on a holiday.

[mick063]

24. Here is why we will never prosecute the 1% thieves for past or future crimes in my lifetime:

Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2013, 04:58 AM - Edit history (2)

An old Link from 2008

WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation is struggling to find enough agents and resources to investigate criminal wrongdoing tied to the country’s economic crisis, according to current and former bureau officials.

Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times

Robert S. Mueller III, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, speaking before a House subcommittee in April.

The bureau slashed its criminal investigative work force to expand its national security role after the Sept. 11 attacks, shifting more than 1,800 agents, or nearly one-third of all agents in criminal programs, to terrorism and intelligence duties. Current and former officials say the cutbacks have left the bureau seriously exposed in investigating areas like white-collar crime, which has taken on urgent importance in recent weeks because of the nation’s economic woes

The Robber Barons must perpetually scare us with terrorism so that FBI agents that would normally investigate white collar crime, will instead be diverted to fight terrorism.

Stop and think about it. Bin Laden is dead. Al Qaeda is a shadow of it's former self. Our President hung his campaign hat on his wonderful success "winning" the war on global terrorism.

Yet we must spend 6 billion fucking dollars on a data collection center in Utah.

Why?

Quite simply.....to divert FBI agents from Wall Street.

[yurbud]

30. I think it is less a matter of resources than will. If you weighed who did more damage to the US

bin Laden or the heads of the Wall Street banks, there's no question that SEAL Team 6 should have been visiting Martha's Vineyard or wherever those assholes hang out on the weekend instead of bin Laden.

[mick063]

31. Point taken

But also realize that there is some degree of politics involved and the American people need to be provided a plausible excuse.

"With all of this terrorism, the FBI is simply stretched too thin."

This is what they would have us believe.

Actually, President Bush did immediately pull 500 FBI agents off of active investigations to begin the terrorism campaign. There is some truth to it. In 2001 that is.

Consider that the 2008 economic debacle was a full seven years after 9/11. In other words, even after seven years, they were "stretched too thin" to adequately investigate the greatest heist in human history.

So why does it have to continue to this day? A full 12 years after 9/11? With Bin Laden dead? With Al Qaeda decimated?

Because the Justice Department is corrupt. Absolutely corrupt. "On the take".

There is no other viable reason for "Too big to prosecute" Eric Holder's refusal to take this on. Further, they obviously are not stretched too thin to storm pot dispensaries that are 100% compliant with state law. No sir. Not stretched too thin for that.

[hobbit709]

27. I'd be happy if he went after the banksters as aggressively as he goes after MMJ clinics

[Greybnk48]

28. "and" not "or" n/t

[Caretha]

29. Wish there was an option

for:

Should Obama go after Wall St. or Bush/Cheney war criminals more aggressively than Snowden?

[yurbud]

33. good point

[flvegan]

32. Barack Obama?

LOL! Go after Wall Street crims? *snicker*

Go after Bush/Cheney, et al? *guffaw*

Sorry, I can't contain myself when faced with such comedy. Go after...lmao!! That's okay though, as I NEVER expected Obama to do either in any way, shape or form. Why would he? Honestly, why would he?

But hey, don't blame me as I voted for Kucinich.