Would you be in favor of War Crimes indictments and fair trials for Bush and his minions?

[NNN0LHI]

Poll question: Would you be in favor of War Crimes indictments and fair trials for Bush and his minions?

[Kutjara]

1. Do the trials have to be fair?

I'm sick of wasting time on these pricks. Just sling the whole sorry bunch in a deep hole and forget where you left the key.

[eShirl]

4. yes.

[NNN0LHI]

6. I would expect nothing less from a civilized country

No death penalty either. Life with no parole max.

Don

[Kutjara]

9. Well, the least we can do is use their own laws against them.

A bit of extraordinary renditioning and some vigorous "encouragement" under questioning prior to their "trial." After all, that's the American Way now.

[NNN0LHI]

12. No. Torture never gets to the truth. Just gets people to say what you want them to say

I'd want the truth.

Don

[Kutjara]

I doubt if torture would be necessary with these cowards.

The first whiff of any discomfort at all and they'd rat out every co-conspirator, henchman and lackey they've had since third grade. All you'd have to do with Chimpy is cut off his access to booze and he'd fold like a $5 tent.

[hootinholler]

26. I have no problem redering them to the Hague after they pardon themselves.

That's how I see it playing out, pardons all around. If I understand the protocol, the Hague will only take the case if the probability they will be tried in the US is low.

-Hoot

[Demeter]

21. Yes, Life Without Parole Would Be So Much Crueler

[Cleita]

2. Absolutely!

Although, he and his minions have not given our POWs this fair treatment, we aren't them, so they should have a fair trial and sentencing.

[tekisui]

3. I'd like to know how to get that ball rolling.

I've about given up on Impeachment. How do you refer someone to the ICC, officially? I think its well warranted and I believe someone will hold him to account someday. Even if it's in 2040 and in absentia.

[NNN0LHI]

11. TahitiNut has mentioned as long as we have a functioning legal system its our case to prosecute

And that makes perfect sense to me.

Don

[tekisui]

13. So is that suggesting exhaust the Impeachment route, then try them

in the legal system outside Congress? How? Can we sue?

[NNN0LHI]

15. We can both try Bush and Impeach him after he leaves office

One doesn't cancel out the other.

Don

[tekisui]

16. Right, but can WE do anything now, legally,

other than call for Impeachment? Any citizen recourse after OUR Speaker ignores her duty?

Do you think that a Dem POTUS and Dem controlled Congress will do anything in 2009? I doubt it, we'll be on to other problems.
So, what can WE do to hold them accountable?

[TahitiNut]

24. Yup. There are two considerations. (1) The ICC is a "court of last resort."

That means that the accused's nation has "first dibs" on prosecution. Only when that nation (us) shows no prospect of prosecuting such crimes does the ICC accept jurisdiction.

(2) The United States is no longer a signatory to the Rome Treaty. In May 2002, the Cheney/Bush regime 'unsigned the 1998 Rome Statute which established an International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC treaty -- which was signed by President Bill Clinton -- has been signed by almost 140 countries and ratified by 66 and took formal effect July 1, 2002.

Thus, the jurisdiction of the ICC is problematic. Generally, the ICC accepts jurisdiction if (1) the accused is a national of a State Party to the Rome Statute or (2) the alleged crimes occured on the territory of a State Party to the Rome Statute. Iraq is not a Party to the Rome Statute and, if the "unsigning" is valid, neither is the U.S. The U.S. may, however, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question.

http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

[gateley]

28. Boy you're impressive! Again, thanks for the excellent post. nt

[NNN0LHI]

29. Yep. Its worth hanging out at DU just to read TN's posts

No exaggeration.

Don

[gateley]

30. And others. I learn so much and I actually give thought to many more issues

than I would if I didn't have this resource.

[L. Coyote]

5. No need for the trials to be fair. Give them the Jose Padilla treatment!

[lligrd]

7. In Favor Of It? I Demand It! nt

[gateley]

8. Absolutely! I'm an American and I would DEMAND they receive the same rights

and treatments that they've bestowed on everyone who is being held according to the rules in the Patriot Act!

[ginchinchili]

10. Hell yes!

[chaumont58]

14. In 1946, German politicians and generals were hanged for waging

aggressive war.

I've thought for some time the same fate should await Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, a whole host of neocons.
Its not going to happen. America is the biggest bully on the block. So they will get away with murder. The blot will be there for this country's history for years.

[Kelly Rupert]

17. So long as they're fair, yes. n/t

[Richard D]

18. It's necessary . . .

. . . plus, think of the advertising revenue that would pour into the network(s) that were televising it. It would make the OJ trial look like Barbie and Ken Go To Traffic School.

[donheld]

19. They could easily be convicted even with a totally fair trial.

[warren pease]

20. Yes, as long as sentencing options include life at Abu Ghraib...

I want indictments, public trials, convictions and, preferably, the gallows for the entire treasonous lot of rat bastards. But since I'm against the death penalty, I'd settle for life without possibility of parole at Abu Ghraib under the tender care of our tax-payer funded torture experts. Like these happy, well-adjusted people administering justice the good old American way.



Now just imagine Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rice, Hadley, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Woolsey, Libby, Armitage, Bolton, Negroponte and a couple dozen more of these career criminals trussed up like Thanksgiving turkeys or forced to form a human pyramid, as these "detainees" have been.

.

I'm not a harsh person by nature, but if these evil bastards are going to claim to live by the old testament, then an eye for an eye works for me. A-OK there, eh buddy?




wp

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluerthanblue]

23. yes, it would be good for the world, and good for the USA-

we need to be held accountable.

If anyone is allowed to do what this administration has done without being made to face the consequence, the world will be in constant turmoil.

[TahitiNut]

25. We're a nation of cowards and outlaws, without honor, unless and until that happens, imho.

That's not zealotry speaking ... that's my inescapable viewpoint. I don't believe we could do much worse in crating conditions in this nation which we leave to the next generation and the one after that. It's probably the worst "legacy" we could leave, no matter how difficult it is to contemplate it.

Cheney should be imprisoned for life without possibility of parole, imho. So should Rumsfeld, Rice, Feith, Gonzales, Bolton, and several others. Smirk should also - but the cell should be padded and isolated and he placed in a straitjacket. There are apparently a dozen or two who should receive severe but somewhat lesser sentences, imho. Chalabi presents an interesting challenge in both jurisdiction and sentencing. Without a doubt, he's complicit.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. This is the only way the U.S. can redeem its reputation

and acknowledge its idiocy in allowing that crew to take over the country.

[porphyrian]

31. Their trials will be as fair and to the letter as can be, emphasizing the horror...

...and criminality of their disregard for civil rights and the rule of law during their reign.