Do you agree with this statement ? ....

[Blarch]

When a President's crimes go unpunished, it sets a precedent and provides legal cover for future Presidents, effectively leaving it on the table for future Presidents.

[Occam Bandage]

1. No President has ever been prosecuted by his successor. Never. Ever. Not once. Never.

It hasn't ever happened. It won't happen now. The sooner you get over it, the better.

[Blarch]

2. Is that a yes ?

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

3. It's what it is and nothing more.

[Bjorn Against]

5. Why the hell should we get over it?

A million people are dead in Iraq, people were tortured, people were illegally spied on, and our treasury was looted and we should get over it? If these people get away without prosecution we should NEVER get over it. These are serious crimes and just because the good ol' boys club won't allow their own to be prosecuted that does not mean we should be silent as they protect their criminal friends.

[Occam Bandage]

7. I didn't say that you should get over his crimes.

I said that you should get over any hope of him ever standing trial. Bush is not going to be tried. By anyone. Ever. Elections have consequences. That's one of 'em.

[Bjorn Against]

9. In his case stolen elections have consequences.

Sometimes it is not so much about hope as it is about accountability, whether Bush is personally brought before trial we need to make it clear that he is a criminal and the people who are refusing to prosecute him are complicit in his crimes.

[Occam Bandage]

11. "Need?" We "need" to have somebody prosecute him?

Or what? Or we'll "embolden the enemy?" (Right, like Nixon's resignation kept Reagan and Bush from doing illegal shit.) Or we'll embarrass ourselves on the world stage? World's just glad Bush is gone. Or the nation will crumble and perish? Then we're right fucked, because no prosecution is going to happen, because no President has ever done that, ever.

[Bjorn Against]

13. We need people who commit grave crimes to be prosecuted for those crimes

If we send the message that Presidents can violate the Constitution and wage illegal wars of aggression without consequence then we send a message to future Presidents that they can get away with the same thing. So yes we need to have George Bush prosecuted for war crimes, because if he is not prosecuted we will see the consequences in future administrations.

[Occam Bandage]

14. Do you believe that the investigation and move towards impeachment of Richard Nixon

scared Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush away from abuses of power? Do you think the impeachment of Bill Clinton scared politicians away from having affairs?

[Bjorn Against]

16. Well Nixon was held accountable, and I am sure every President thinks about what happened to him.

Just because one person commits a crime does not mean no one will commit a crime in the future. That would be like saying that if one person steals something and gets caught no one else will steal anything. Catching one person won't stop everyone else from stealing, but it may stop some people from stealing. It may also cause some thieves to be more careful and thus possibly not stealing as much as they would have otherwise. Nixon's case very well may have made Reagan and Bush think twice before doing something, and it is certainly possible that they may have been even worse if they had not realized the consequences Nixon faced. No one will ever know if that is the case or not, but it is certainly a strong possibility. We can't stop all potential crimes of future Presidents, but we can send a strong message that if they do the same thing they could get prosecuted as well.

[Occam Bandage]

17. So you believe that Bush would have committed even more crimes if not for Nixon?

I don't think that's a reasonable position to take. It looks to me as if both Bush and Reagan did everything they thought they could do without being caught (with enough evidence to convict), without a second's thought as to what would happen if they actually were caught.

[Bjorn Against]

19. They certainly did a lot, but who knows how much more they would have done.

I can't prove the Nixon case influenced them at all, but that doesn't mean it didn't. It certainly is reasonable to think they looked at and considered past historical precedent, how much influence it had we will never know for certain but all administrations think about historical precedent to a certain extent.

[MadMaddie]

18. The problem is Nixon resigned

and many of the criminals that participated in the crimes didn't get prosecuted. They came back to haunt us Cheney, Rumsfeld and others in their cabal.

The President and Congress are obligated by the law to open investigations and let them lead where they may.

What's the Bastard that outed Valerie Plame? He said again this week he was proud that he outed a CIA agent, that is an admission of guilt. His arrogance has no bounds. He along with Rove and whoever else was involved should be prosecuted for Treason.

By prosecuting these criminals that resided in DC for the last 8 years it will show the world that America is a country where the rule of law does have importance and it's not just a talking point.

[DUlover2909]

21. Wouldn't it be cool if Dallas shunned the Bushes when they move there?

Nobody serve them dinner at a restaurant. Nobody deliver their newspaper. Nobody cooperate with them at all ever for the rest of their lives. The same goes for Rove and Cheney. I know, I'm dreaming.

[Uzybone]

4. Still waiting for the charges to be brought against FDR and Lincoln

not to mention all the presidents we had during our long history of Slavery and Native American holocausts.

[crunchgarcia]

6. Ehhhh....

I think the elections are won based on contrasts; so, no, I don't agree. That statement also implies we're incapable of electing someone who is NOT a crook...

just sayin'...

[political_Dem]

8. I agree because no President should be above the law.

I don't like the precedent that Nixon set when he told the public that the President doesn't commit wrongdoing. And since Bush and his cronies come from the Nixon camp, their arrogance knows no bounds in trying to push this line of thought. It is highly angering as well as ironic that they expect to get away with what they've done in the White House.

[H2O Man]

10. I'd take it

a step further: when the Congress fails to uphold their oath of office, they, too, do damage to the foundation of our Constitutional democracy.

[RufusEarl]

12. Give this man a cigar! Bingo, congress must do it's job...

Peace!

[Danger Mouse]

15. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. FDR interned the Japanese.

Should they have been prosecuted as well?

[Blarch]

20. HC can be suspended in time of rebellion.

thanks for playing.

[Danger Mouse]

22. You missed FDR.

Thanks for playing.
Should Truman have been tried for war crimes for dropping the atomic bomb?

[Blarch]

23. You sure do love defending Bush and his crimes.

Are you sure you belong here ?

[Danger Mouse]

24. Whoever said I was defending them. Do you consider what FDR did to the Japanese a crime?

And considering some of the shit you've posted, you're a funny one to question whether I belong here or not.

[ZombieHorde]

25. The Japanese concentration camps were an abomination

and FDR's involvement is an embarrassment to our country.

[Blarch]

27. Nope.

FDR used an executive order to do what he did. And that Executive order was approved by the Supreme Court.

Do you think FDR and Lincoln should have been charged ?

[Danger Mouse]

28. SO that makes it legal?

What if Bush signed an executive order to intern all 'enemies of the state' and it was approved by the Supreme Court? Would you have a problem with that?

[Blarch]

29. Approved by the SC ...

Yes, It would be legal, and yes, I would have a problem with that. Same goes with the camps.

[Danger Mouse]

30. Do you have a problem with US Government genocide of Native Americans?

Was that legal?

[Blarch]

32. Unreal.

You are now using the slaughter of Native Americans to defend the crimes of Bush.

Your argument implies that you think Bush has committed crimes, and should not be held responsible because nobody was held responsible for the slaughter of Native Americans.

You should be ashamed.

[Danger Mouse]

33. Never once have I defended Bush, so I feel no need to be ashamed of anything.

Nor did I ever say that Bush shouldn't face consequences for what he did.
What I AM pointing out is that countless presidents have done evil deeds, and not one has been held responsible for them.
Bush will be no different. Mark my words.
Unless the Hague wants him, but it won't be in this country.

[Zynx]

31. The Supreme Court later found that to be unconstitutional.

The same applies for the revist of the Komatsu ruling.

[Danger Mouse]

34. Ex Parte Milligan, i believe.

[Solon]

26. The Precedent is already set, its not going to change anytime soon...

Damn near all our most recent Presidents, for the last 50 years at least, if the Nuremburg trials set proper precedent, would have lived the rest of their lives in prison, or would have hung from a rope.

[Blarch]

35. This poll exposes DU ...

I posted a thread a week ago that claimed Obama was going to basically legalize torture by not not holding anyone accountable....

And the vast majority of DUers attacked me for saying this, they made fun and cracked jokes, some were so uninformed that they claimed Obama would OUTLAW torture ...as if it is legal now.

But now the vast majority agree with me.

How childish.

[cali]

36. ill phrased and well, predictably simplistic to the point of stupidity.

which is why I didn't vote in this poll.

[Blarch]

37. And yet...

You felt the need to post and insult me ...and the others who have taken the poll seriously.

:eyes:

I see a pattern developing with you. Maybe you need to go look in the mirror.

[balantz]

38. It's obvious, they won't bite their own kind. It would open the door to the real rulers.

They are in their own club, the club of ownership and control of everything. Why should they prosecute one of their own? For us? Hah! That'll be the day!

[mmonk]

39. If your car has a flat tire, does changing the driver without replacing the tire

correct the problem even if you "trust" the new driver and got rid of the one that ran over the nail? I will be watching my party closely over the next four years to determine if the tire is adequately addressed and if not, I will have to make an intellectual and moral decision that I can live with.