President Obama's administration must prosecute Bush/Cheney administration criminals, y/n.

[bobthedrummer]

Poll question: President Obama's administration must prosecute Bush/Cheney administration criminals, y/n.

Only two ways to vote, no undecided option.

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Elizabeth Cheney, Perle, and many other Bush/Cheney administration criminals must be prosecuted and held accountable for what they did to The United States of America and to the world in our name.

If you agree, please add some names that should be prosecuted.

[Captain Hilts]

1. What about Powell?

[Phredicles]

3. My cynical thought was that Powell's endorsement was just about trying

to avoid being among those charged if (and, let us hope, when) the time comes.

[dkofos]

18. Him too!!

[bobthedrummer]

29. Certainly he must be held accountable, and possibly his son Michael when he was at FCC. n/t

[ThomWV]

48. I consider anyone - ANYONE - who votes no to be a traitor

The rule of law must be preserved.

[AndyA]

2. I see we have at least one Freeper here today.

Why the hell would anyone NOT want Bush/Cheney, etc. prosecuted?

Only a Republican could be that stupid. (Save me the "we must forgive, and forget to move forward shit. These are criminals, and we must not allow their illegal actions to set a precedence.)

[Swamp Rat]

4. "It requires an overthrow of this kind of power" - FDR

Prosecution of war crimes is paramount.

[Greyhound]

10. Somebody's listening to Thom.

:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

12. yep

:D :hi:

[Greyhound]

22. I know he can't say it, thanks to decades of brainwashing, but wouldn't it be cool

if he actually does this kind of thing once in office?

[Captain Hilts]

15. Yeah, baby...

ER: Boo-yeah!

[El Supremo]

5. As I have said many times...

Any charges made by the Department of Justice or trial by any court would eventually go to the Supreme Court. And right now we don't have the majority of the SCOTUS to convict. Nothing is going to happen.

[conscious evolution]

31. Maybe

We will not know for sure till they are charged and tried.

Edit to add:I can think of a couple of Supremes who should face impeachment myself.Get rid of the bush cronies and we may have a chance.

[NeedleCast]

6. No

Do I wish it would happen? Yes.

Do I think it's a good idea? No.

[Greybnk48]

7. Gonzalas, Meiers, Rove, Card.

I'll leave some for others to list.

[OneBlueSky]

8. I voted yes, but it ain't gonna happen . . . no how, no way . . . n/t

.

[Greyhound]

9. Yes, but I'll quite pleasantly stunned if he does anything at all about this murder-for-profit. n/t

[PuppyBismark]

11. Bush will pardon all of them before he leaves office

Just like Ford did for Nixon after he became president. The only hope is that we can still get Bush.

[conscious evolution]

32. Let him.

That would give the ICC jurisdiction.

[d_b]

13. Rove

[norepubsin08]

14. The entire fucking cabinet

plus the entire RNC just clear out Gitmo and stick all in there and forget about them!

[Selatius]

16. You can't prosecute Bush anymore. He already pardoned himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBUkxvfL_eE

You can thank the Republican Congress for pardoning him before the Democrats took power.

[MrCoffee]

17. They must, but they won't

There's not a snowball's chance in hell that Obama will go after any of them.

[qwlauren35]

19. Ridiculous waste of taxpayer money.

For starters. Diversion from "real issues" to boot.

And I have no idea what could be gained. Putting them in jail would be another waste of taxpayer money.

I think I could live with extradition, though.

There comes a time to be "principled", and a time to be pragmatic.

If you had a choice between prosecuting half of the Bush administration and doing something about housing foreclosures, I *hope* you would choose the latter.

[Jed Dilligan]

20. Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity.

We strung up Streicher, why not them?

[lelgt60]

23. Yeah...screw free speech...and don't bother with a trial

Now that we're going to be in power, we can't allow any dissent - especially vicious dissent. Shut down the ACLU! Just string em up. The Repugs taught us good.

[Jed Dilligan]

24. Who said anything about no trial?

Enjoy your stay.

[lelgt60]

25. Just adding my 2 sarcastic cents. But I still don't understand the crime

Don't get me wrong - I think Hannity, especially, is a terrible person on all sorts of levels, but nasty speech isn't the same thing as what Bushco actually did, or Rove, etc.

Nasty speech should be protected, no?

[Jed Dilligan]

27. Up to a certain point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher

On edit: While it would be very satisfying to see the blowhards on trial, I really think the one to nail would be Murdoch himself.

[conscious evolution]

33. Speech that promotes hate is considered a crime against humanity

And there is plenty of precedence for charging them.
Just ask J.Stiecher,Jean Bosco Barayagwiza,Ferdinand Nahimana,and Hassan Ngeze.

In case anyone is not familiar with the last three names:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_Rwanda

Trial against "hate media"
The trial against "hate media" began on October 23, 2000. It is charged with the prosecution of the media which encouraged the genocide of 1994.

On August 19, 2003, at the tribunal in Arusha, life sentences were requested for Ferdinand Nahimana, and Jean Bosco Barayagwiza, persons in charge for the Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines, as well as Hassan Ngeze, director and editor of the Kangur newspaper. They are charged with genocide, incitement to genocide, and crimes against humanity, before and during the period of the genocides of 1994. On 3 December 2003, the court found all three defendants guilty and sentenced Nahimana and Ngeze to life imprisonment and Barayagwiza to imprisonment for 35 years. The case is currently on appeal.
The tribunal has failed to prosecute the founders, sponsors or anyone related to Radio Muhabura, a media whose bellicist, pro-RPF messages were broadcast throughout the country during the 1990-1994 war.

[lelgt60]

38. Are you suggesting we repeal the first amendment...

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."

Or do you see international prosecution as a way around it?

I don't see how it would be criminal in the US.

[conscious evolution]

40. The ICC would be the way around

the first amendment.
But then again,you can't yell fire in a crowded theater either.Maybe some really smart prosecutor can figure a way around it.
Inciting riots or insurrection are illegal here.Maybe they can use those laws against them.

[unpossibles]

43. Not all things are considered protected under the first amendment

There are thankfully very few exceptions, but there are exceptions.

I for one don't think anyone like Rush or Hannity should be censored, both because I am against censorship, but also because if they want to spew hatespeech, that is their right. I do, however, think we need to stop giving them such a good platform, treating them as experts, and not calling them out on it more.

[conscious evolution]

47. Believe it or not

I don't like censorship either.
However I also believe one can cross a line with it.Inciting hatred and violence is one such line.Poisoning peoples minds with lies,distortions and deception also crosses the line.Same with using phsycological and behavioral sciences as tools to manipulate the mindset of unaware people.
I am not the only one who sees it like this.After ww2 several german and japanese were charged,tried and executed for using media as a weapon.
Same thing happened after the Rwandan Genocide.

If you do not think such manipulations are happening here I would suggest researching "talking points".There are plenty of examples out there that suggests that a coordinated campaign to spread mis/disinformation or plant seeds for later manipulations is being used against the American people.
By the way,the media is not the only place they do this.Religon is another method used to manipulate minds.

[unpossibles]

52. Oh, I totally agree it's happening, and far too much

I just have misgivings about what to do about it without crossing the line. Maybe we could fine people who lie on news networks. I don't know - that way they can still lie if they choose, but would think twice about it.

[timtom]

64. "Yeah...screw free speech...and don't bother with a trial"

I don't think it would hurt just this once....

Given the extraordinary circumstances, and all...

[madokie]

21. Without a doubt

let the chips fall where they may. Over a million innocent lives lost is not something to be scoffed at. Actually any one of the million plus lives lost deserve no less.

maybe I'm just biased because I believe in law and justice I don't know.

[Iggo]

26. They should and they won't.

Next.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

28. Thom Hartmann said that when Congress returns, to prevent pardons, Impeachment proceedings

should begin.

[Courtesy Flush]

30. I voted No

Because I think they should be tried in an international court. An American court 1. won't prosecute a president, and 2. will be seen as a partisan witch hunt.

An international court would lend a non-partisan authenticity, and will underscore the scope of the outrage over these crimes.

[DailyGrind51]

34. And, if they flee to Dubai, hunt them down like they did Milosevic or Karodjzic

and frog-march them into the Hague!

[JackRiddler]

35. Must & yet won't. Not without a hundred million people demanding it.

[Jamastiene]

36. That'd be nice.

I doubt we'll see it happen though as long as Pelosi has her way.

[Solly Mack]

37. Guess

:)

[Ani Yun Wiya]

39. This is something that MUST be done.

If the criminals are allowed to simply slither away again, the "new" administration will have ZERO credibility.

The way I see it is that at least six dozen of these folks should be subject to summary execution.
In addition there are another couple of hundred who should be spending the rest of their days locked up.

Beyond that the GOP should lose all credibility to the point of becoming the new "whigs".

[Occam Bandage]

41. It won't. No administration has ever prosecuted its predecessor.

[GetTheRightVote]

42. It would be great if they handled them and their admin, put them in jail

and throw away the key.

:grr:

[4lbs]

44. Sorry, but no way anyone in the Bush administration will ever be prosecuted.

That's because the last "F-U!!!!" act Dubya will do is pardon everyone involved in the last 8 years.

Presidential Pardon = untouchable.

[lpbk2713]

45. Would Katherine Harris be covered by the Statute of Limitations ...

for her prominent role in the Y2K selection? I would love to see her get what's coming to her.

[Unvanguard]

46. I'm not sure it's worth spending the vast amounts of political capital it will require.

It might strengthen the rule of law, since the Bush Administration has so flagrantly violated it, but, then, if it is perceived as politically motivated, it might also have the opposite effect.

Unless a compelling opportunity presents itself, I lean toward "no." Especially when a verb as strong as "must" is being used.

[robcon]

49. It would be incredibly stupid to prosecute the prior administration.

Incredibly stupid, consistent with a third rate coup, not an elected administration. Fortunately Barack Obama has more sense than 85%+ of DUers, IMO.

[mudesi]

50. Why in the world are there people on DU saying NO?

Trolls?

[guitar man]

51. they should

but they won't. the Obama administration taking the time and resources to prosecute the shitbags in the midst of a financial meltdown would guarantee Obama would be a one term president. Sadly enough, too many people just would not understand the reasoning behind it, although it is the right thing to do.

I think the Boosh crowd saw the coming financial crisis as their means of escape. Like the magician that throws down the powder that goes *POOF* while he disappears behind a cloud of smoke, so will the Boosh asshats fade away in the midst of this financial crisis. It's a sad state of affairs, but I'm afraid that's how it's going to go down. :(

[blues90]

53. Pelosi should have allowed impeachment on the table

And we would not be dealing with this or the last 2 years of more mass damage as there is now.

Obama will not do crap about this , who is kidding whom?

[Karenina]

54. HOLD. THEM. ACCOUNTABLE.

[bobthedrummer]

55. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (WI-D) introduced the Executive Branch Accountability Act of 2008 last month

DUer davidswanson posted about it on After Downing Street.org-here's a link to his post about Wisconsin Democrat Rep.Tammy Baldwin's Executive Branch Accountability Act of 2008

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/baldwinbill

[bobthedrummer]

56. bttt

[bobthedrummer]

57. ^

[Cleita]

58. Karl Rove as I have outlined in my post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4302665&mesg_id=4302665

[bobthedrummer]

60. If found guilty of treason Rove should be executed eom

[lonestarnot]

59. How about a hell yes choice?

I like lots of choices! :evilgrin:

[bobthedrummer]

61. Why aren't there thousands of votes in this meaningless DU poll-the street consensus is overwhelming

that yes, these Bush administration criminals (past and present) must be prosecuted, and held accountable for their crimes.

[DrDebug]

62. What about Paul Bremer?

1. CEO of Kissinger & Co.
2. National Commission on Terrorism
3. Director of Marsh & McClennan with an office in WTC2 at and above where the second aircraft hit.
4. Created the blueprint for Department of Homeland Security together with Edwin Meese
5. Viceroy of Iraq between May 2003 and June 2004
6. Passed a total of 369 laws by decree most of which were in direct violation of either the existing laws or international laws ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/27-10/Ch6.htm )

[timtom]

63. Douglas Feith, Dov Zackheim,

Condoleeza Rice.