Former Congresswoman: Not too late to hold Bush and Cheney accountable
Source: RawStory
Former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-NY) told MSNBCs Martin Bashir on Thursday that former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney could still be held accountable for violating federal criminal statues.
As a former prosecutor and a former member of the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate, I spent a lot of time taking a look at the statues, she explained. Its one thing to abuse power, and its one thing not to do the right thing, but its another thing to commit a crime.
Holtzman said Bush and Cheney appear to have knowingly violated at least three statues.
She said Bush and Cheney likely committed conspiracy to defraud the United States, for the deceptions involved in going to war with Iraq. Secondly, she claimed they violated federal statues regarding the wiretapping of Americans without a court order. Thirdly, Holtzman said Bush and Cheney violated federal laws prohibiting torture.
Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/19/former-congresswoman-not-too-late-to-hold-bush-and-cheney-accountable/
madamesilverspurs
(15,774 posts)I generally don't comment on others' flubs on these boards, given that I frequently make my own.
But it's stunning that Raw Story would fail to notice the difference between statues and statutes. Had some right wing entity made this error, we'd be all over it like stink on poo.
gahhhhh......
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)IDemo
(16,926 posts)Turns out, on top of everything else Dick and George were doing, they were actually violating statues as well.
SnohoDem
(1,036 posts)harmonicon
(12,008 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)Scooping the lounge on anything relating to perverted sex is...well ...simply unheard of! Your reference to statue sex may be a first!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)'Covered a multitude of sins.'
Big, fat, nasty ones.
Javaman
(62,397 posts)Kramer: Well, I'm not giving it back.
Jerry: Why not?
Kramer: Because I meet a lot of women in this jacket, you know they're attracted to it. Why do you think my mother went out with him?
[Kramer takes some nachos and spills some to Elaine's test.]
Kramer: Oh, gees...
Elaine: Yeah, ok...[takes the test and goes to another table.]
Kramer: Anyway, it's been two years. I mean isn't there like statue of limitations on that?
Jerry: Statute.
Kramer: What?
Jerry: Statute of limitations. It's not a statue.
Kramer: No, statue.
Jerry: Fine, it's a sculpture of limitations.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Allegations of violations of the Fourth and Eighth Amendments (arguably) plus fraud to get us into war (never did figure out who was behind the Niger scandal) have occurred and our justice system has omitted an investigation and trial.
Yet some of us worry about omission of a "t" in the word statute -- an extremely common typo.
Interesting.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)Good grief.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Ain't never gonna happen. They didn't even investigate 9/11 fully.
cstanleytech
(26,027 posts)as they do belong in prison for the rest of their lives imo.
totodeinhere
(13,028 posts)Cheney would still be alive by then but Bush probably will be.
cstanleytech
(26,027 posts)see any prosecution let alone a conviction.
And the politicians in both houses for both parties are also to scared to attempt to hold Bush and Cheney responsible for their actions because they fear voter backlash.
totodeinhere
(13,028 posts)If we get a good progressive in office hopefully she or he would appoint an honest attorney general who would go after those crooks. Congress could complain about it but they would not have the power to stop it. Once it gets into the judicial system then our separation of powers doctrine would prevent Congress from interfering.
I have heard speculation that a former president could be impeached and convicted by Congress in order to remove their pension and benefits. Of course that would involve Congress. But former presidents are also subject to normal criminal or civil prosecution.
Or the Justice department could refer them to the World Court so that they could be tried for crimes against humanity.
cstanleytech
(26,027 posts)over the government and its varies branches including the DOJ.
marshall gaines
(347 posts)i love it, but nothing will ever come of it. Everyone knows america can do no wrong
loudsue
(14,087 posts)Like it would ever happen in today's america.
24601
(3,938 posts)harmonicon
(12,008 posts)indepat
(20,899 posts)the evil-doers with wiretapping Americans thrown in as lagniappe, is it not time to get off Dick's and junior's cases and let them enjoy retirement so they can travel in peace?
AnotherDreamWeaver
(2,846 posts)I wish it would happen too. Now, what must we do to see that it does?
annabanana
(52,791 posts)If American citizens have ANYTHING to do with the running of this Country, the citizenry is complicit in the crime if we never prosecute.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)So many people think the worst crimes ever committed by the U.S. government can just be brushed aside, they can't. History shows that war crimes never go away, they are heinous acts against humanity that humanity never just forgets.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)yeah I can dream. The Rich usually have that get out of jail free card.. like I assume Ted Nugent did. although I know he didn't mean it. , he should be tried as an accessory if any of his nutty fans do something rash.
progressoid
(49,758 posts)unkachuck
(6,295 posts)....so why aren't they being charged with a crime and being held accountable? If we committed crimes we'd be charged, so why aren't bush and cheney?
....I believe we have an unjust multi-level justice system....laws obviously don't apply to everyone equally....just goes to show how broken and bogus our system has become....
wordpix
(18,652 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)and other prosecutors and lawyers may see it differently?
Domingo Tavella
(41 posts)This is like saying "it is likely that gambling goes on in Vegas". These guys defrauded the American taxpayer of 4 trillion dollars and almost sank the economy for good. This is the worst example of malfeasance in the history of the world, more egregious in fact that the burning of Rome by Nero. This is not what is most disgusting, however. What is most disgusting is that the vast majority of the public swallowed their lies whole, as did practically everyone in Congress. Not even greatly overrated Hillary Clinton saw what anyone with half a brain around the world could clearly see. Should one hold responsible Bush and Cheney for having taken advantage of the stupidity of the public? Or did the people get what they voted for?
wordpix
(18,652 posts)The Wizard
(12,467 posts)has damaged the American people through illegal and deceptive policies designed to extract money from the Treasury and send it to off shore hidden tax shelters. They committed the greatest robbery in History and left a trail of victims in their wake. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes.
Uncle Joe
(58,029 posts)Thanks for the thread, IDemo.
firehorse
(755 posts)those two will never see justice, the powerful rich are above the law. The law is only for us lowly peons.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)All Fired Up and Ready to Go.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
panzerfaust
(2,818 posts)Because the Constitution is a relic of the past.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)...or is that just a quaint old-fashioned idea?
RZM
(8,556 posts)In the end, this is what it's all about. I believe that such actions would be wildly popular here on DU, but not so much among the rest of the country. It would probably be pretty far underwater poll-wise, with many more people disapproving than approving.
I believe the Republicans would have an absolute field day with this and could possibly ride it all the way to sweeps of the presidency, senate, and house. They where would we be? When all is said and done, would that be worth it? Is a trial for Bush and Cheney worth padding Boehner's lead in the house, giving McConnell a credible path to 60 votes, and one or more Republican-appointed supreme court justices who will serve for life?
Some might say yes. But the Democratic establishment will say 'hell no,' which is the main reason this will never happen.
Be careful what you wish for . . . .
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And there was care taken to see that it was tried in the courts of public perception, it would not be politically infeasible.
Most people are NOT Republicans. In fact, most people are not Democrats.
Something like 26 percent of all Americans feel they must vote for a Republican. And Thirty four percent of all voters feel they must only vote for Democrats.
Most people want justice. They are not at all feeling that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld are sacred, and should be protected.
Most people in this country are middle class, and they really truly don't understand why they haven't been protected from such things as predatory lending practices, bank bailouts that DO NOT trickle down (and help the working stiffs), and also foreclosure. Yet Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld don't have to worry about being tried for their war crimes? Why ever not?
RZM
(8,556 posts)Unfortunately I think they would have the edge in the war of perception. Bush had a modest number of people that intensely hated him, but I don't think it would be correct to argue that he was widely despised. His approval rating was in the toilet by the end, but disapproving of his job performance and being anxious to move on from him are quite a ways from wanting him put on trial years after he has been out of office. Bringing serious criminal charges against an ex-president would be uncharted territory for this country - it could end up completely blowing up in the Democrats' faces.
I don't even think you could even get enough genuine Democratic support for this. I'll bet 'let sleeping dogs lie' would be the most popular response if you polled Democrats and independents.
Not saying it's right, but I just don't see enough regular people (and definitely not enough people in power) wanting to go down this road. If we did, I don't think it would end up working out as intended.
I'm tired of fighting with people like you.
RZM
(8,556 posts)It's a discussion board. Everybody has an opinion. I'm giving my take on what I think would happen and why I believe this hasn't been pursued by the current Democratic administration. I think that the number of people, whether politicians or regular folks, who seriously want to pursue this isn't high enough for it to be a realistic possibility. People have moved on from the Bush administration and the politicians aren't willing to risk their jobs re-fighting last decade's battles.
Don't you think that if Democratic politicians thought they could benefit from this that they would do it? I do. They have other priorities, apparently.
Why would that opinion bother you? I'm not saying it's a fact, I'm saying it's an opinion. Who the hell cares, really?
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Like making the people that refuse to prosecute them because it's inconvenient just as guilty as they are.
Covering up a war crime is just as bad as committing one. If anything, it's actually worse since it makes more war crimes likely to happen in the future. The people committing them come to believe, and rightly so, that no one will bother to do anything about it.
panzerfaust
(2,818 posts)It is precisely such attitudes which are making THIS into worthless paper.
Benito, though speaking to Italians in the last century, may now be taken as addressing Americans in the 21st ...
polichick
(37,152 posts)What's the point of pretending this is a democracy with a constitution anymore?
RZM
(8,556 posts)There are differences of opinion here. I've never said that this shouldn't be done. What I'm doing is pointing out the potential drawbacks. This doesn't seem to be very popular.
If you think that it's worth it to take the risk, cool. I certainly see where you're coming from. What I'm trying to say is that the people who could actually do this most definitely don't, because they don't want to risk their jobs and their agenda over what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did last decade.
There are lots of laws that aren't strictly enforced because doing so would be a political loser. The system ain't perfect.
polichick
(37,152 posts)If our democracy is not "worth the risk" then we're saying fuck the U.S. of A. and everything it stands for.