I agree. I don't think Obama has anything to gain from doing such and realizes that it would greatly divide the country if he did. For that matter I take him at his word that he wants to unite the country and look forward. Finally I suspect that once he takes over the presidency he will look at many of the Bush 43rd policies that strengthened the presidency in a different light than he did when he was a Senator.
Nope... you can be impeached for not only high crimes, but misdemeanors as well... abuse of power and official misconduct are valid reasons for impeachment. Of course, the argument is always whether a certain action reaches that level, but you do not have to be guilty of a crime to be impeached.
I think one of the big defenses the Bush cabal would use is that Congressional Democrats, including some slated for Obama's cabinet, knew and approved of their actions, even if it was a tacit approval symbolized by a refusal to raise a fuss. If we're going to go after Bush and Company, we need to understand that elected officials of both parties will probably be found culpable and it will not be pretty for anyone. I have no problem with going forward and letting the chips fall where they may. It can only make the country stronger in the long run.
I wanted to impeach Bush while he was President, but now that Obama is elected and Bush is headed out the door, there's no point. Going after him as a war criminal? I think a case could be made against Bush and several other members of his administration, but the country is in enough chaos as it is. Time to move on.
Got it. We don't have a problem. Thanks for clarifying. You can deem it whatever you want. Intervention sans UNSC mandate doesn't make it illegal. Intervention in the Bosnian conflict goes to my point. Again, above you make the claim that it was illegal because it didn't have a UNSC mandate - I respond that lack of UNSC mandate doesn't make it illegal, then you jump back to 'this one was.' That doesn't answer the gap in your logic. I don't really think that's a pertinent question, but personally I think it was because the last time we intervened in Africa it was a huge fiasco (Somalia). Yes, I did address your question - I pointed out Iraq is better off without Saddam. Again I challenge you to back up your claim rather than repeating it. It just isn't true. Photos of US reps meeting Saddam (your original response) don't prove that Saddam couldn't have acted without US support. That he killed 300,000 shiites WITHOUT US support in '91/'92 disproves your theory. Great. This response appears (correct me if I'm wrong) that you conceed an intervention outside the UN is not necessarily illegal. Thanks. Humantiarian intervention (genocidal dictator) is legitimate. Bosnia established this fairly clearly. Empty rhetoric. I am expressing regret at some US policy choices in the Cold War, yes. Yes, they are - a simply list of US support for democratic outcomes over dictatorships/totalitarian governments swamps those you can list out going the other way. Eastern Europe alone swamps your list. State of emergency doesn't necessitate a declaration of "President for Life" - but I guess we can just disagree on what a democratic regime is since you believe otherwise. The easy part is that I could grant all of these arguments and my point is still valid - on balance we worked a lot more for democracy than against it. Further, while almost all of the US backed dictatorships eventually relenquished power to democratic reform, only ONE of the communist regimes did so. The intervention wasn't illegal and you haven't written anything that would imply that it is other than repeating that it is because it is. Resting your argument on the lack of explicit UNSC authority is faulty as argued above. The Geneva Convention/torture arguments are the same thing so not sure why you're listing those as separate issues. Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about that yet. I don't think we're disagreeing. You recognize 'force' is encompassed in 'severe consequences.' I'm not claiming they are synonymous. I don't know that I agree that a UN condemnation would make it 'illegal.' I don't think so - there's a lot of literature about how 'humanitarian intervention' gained legitimacy post- these Balkan interventions. Which really isn't important to the overall debate. That the Shiites and Kurds represent the largest portion by far of the population, and that they had risen up against Saddam satisfies DD's 'test' of whether or not there should be internal action.
This is why the party keeps pressing the same agenda. They know people will forget in 8 years. =( They will be back, stronger than before.
I vehemently disagree. We are either a country of laws or not. If there were war crimes (or any kind of crimes) that were committed in our name by the administration, WE need to hold all accountable, even if it includes Dems in Congress. The world will always be in some kind of crisis and there is never a good time to pursue justice that will cause grief all around, but to not do it for those reasons is tantamount to destroying the Constitutional Republic we grew up in.
Not sure how I feel about this. I think there is zero chance of getting a judgement of war crimes by intervening in Iraq. However, there is a more probable case to be made surrounding the Geneva Convention controversy. If that case can be made then I would probably not be against pressing further. I don't think it will ultimately get Bush, but Rumsfeld could be on the table.
Abuse of power and official misconduct are also crimes for which politicians go to jail. Just ask the current governor of Illinois. If running up debt and ruining the country were jailable crimes, Jimmy Carter would be up for parole right about now.
Yeah, and it's a point I don't like to make. The ideal gain for an individual American would be to preserve our nation's rule of law through enforcing punishment in order to discourage future perversions upon our values and our Constitution. Unfortunately, I don't think the American people are willing to look deep into themselves and think about the concessions of abstract liberties we gave away in the aftermath of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. I don't remember who said this, but the easiest way to determine a society's well being is to look at how its leaders respect and apply the rule of law. Corruption at the top filters to the bottom. A realistic hope would be for Obama to criminalize (or impose heavier penalties) and redefine all the dirty legalistic ambiguities Clinton and Bush seized upon or created...if only to compensate for the ones he himself has seized upon or created, but mostly to close those precedents.
Bosnia was an entirely different situation. We're talking about a full-scale invasion and occupation. You're comparing apples and oranges. I can say the same thing about your claim, but I think international law is more on the side of my perspective than yours. It a very pertinent question and it's questions like this that nobody really wants to tackle. So it's okay to sit by and watch genocide unfold because a few soldiers died in Somalia? If you're pro-intervention to stop genocide, you should be so across the board rather than picking and choosing spots when it's convenient. No you haven't. I still don't know how many deaths, in your view, will outweigh the potential benefits of intervention. Also, this 300,000 number of deaths by Saddam in 91-92 you keep throwing around, I'm not saying it wasn't possible, but can you provide a source? I don't think I ever claimed otherwise. We're talking about the invasion and occupation of Iraq specifically though. It's something you have to take on a case by case basis. There's a very clear definition of genocide and there wasn't genocide going on in Iraq. Okay so no condemnation of US policy then, I got it, thanks. Seems that in the context that it happened it's ok, in your view, for the US to overthrow democracies. I understand your position now. No, they are not. Look at all the authoritarian regimes and dictatorships the US supports in the Middle East and North Africa alone. Where's the democratic support for Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc...? It necessitates extreme measures and suspending the democratic process is one of them. Your problem isn't with what I'm saying, it's with the nature of the nation-state and the way it operates. Unfortunately, I think the US has done more to deter democracy and national self-determination. See my point above about the Middle East and North Africa. The invasion and occupation was illegal and I could say the same thing about your rhetoric in that you haven't said anything that indicates otherwise. Ultimately, I think the facts and evidence side more with the position that it was illegal as opposed to it being justified, which is what you're saying.
I know you don't like Carter, but blasting him for what you obviously accept in much greater number from Republican presidents just makes you look ridiculous.
From Greenwald today... something I was thinking about but didn't have the ability to put down like he does... Greenwald then goes on to quote Justice Robert Jackson, a man we should quote often these days...
