Prosecute George W. Bush for illegal acts
AntiWar.Com
by Ivan Eland
01/24/09
The Obama administration is reluctant to turn over too many rocks in the Bush administration’s conduct in the War on Terror. Obama has pledged to reach a post-partisan nirvana, and Republicans could condemn any investigation of Bush administration abuse of the republic as a partisan witch-hunt. Also, the Obama administration has a conflict of interest in pursuing investigations and prosecutions against Bush administration officials because now that Obama is president, he may not want to entirely discredit Bush’s precedents, which significantly expanded executive powers. Yet in the expanse of human history, the existence of republican government has been rare and short-lived by comparison. Even in recent years, when republicanism has spread the farthest, we forget how fragile the experiment is. The stakes are high, and the Obama administration needs to beat down the autocratic precedents left by the previous administration. The only way it can do so is by bringing criminal cases against the high level perpetrators...
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=14130
Are we civilized enough to hold our leaders accountable for war crimes?
AlterNet
by John W. Dean
01/26/09
It is difficult to believe that Eric Holder would agree not to enforce the law, like his recent Republican predecessors. Indeed, if he were to do so, President Obama should withdraw his nomination. But as MSNBC ‘Countdown’ anchor Keith Olbermann stated earlier this week, even if the Obama Administration for whatever reason does not investigate and prosecute these crimes, this still does not mean that the Bush Administration officials who were involved in torture are going to get a pass. With few exceptions, the discussion about what the Obama Administration will do regarding the torture of detainees during the Bush years has been framed as a domestic matter, and the fate of those involved in torturing has been largely viewed as a question of whether the Department of Justice will take action. In fact, not only is the world watching what the Obama Administration does regarding Bush’s torturers, but other countries are very likely to take action if the United States fails to do so...
http://tinyurl.com/by55ek
Bush was a big-government disaster
Reason
by Nick Gillespie
01/26/09
The most basic Bush numbers are damning. If increases in government spending matter, then Bush is worse than any president in recent history. During his first four years in office — a period during which his party controlled Congress — he added a whopping $345 billion (in constant dollars) to the federal budget. The only other presidential term that comes close? Bush’s second term. As of November 2008, he had added at least an additional $287 billion on top of that (and the months since then will add significantly to the bill). To put that in perspective, consider that the spendthrift LBJ added a mere $223 billion in total additional outlays in his one full term. If spending under Bush was a disaster, regulation was even worse...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/131264.html
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Obama
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Bush+legacy
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=executive+powers
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=torture
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=detainee
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=war+crimes
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Ivan+Eland
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Olbermann
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=John+W.+Dean
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Nick+Gillespie
by Ivan Eland
01/24/09
The Obama administration is reluctant to turn over too many rocks in the Bush administration’s conduct in the War on Terror. Obama has pledged to reach a post-partisan nirvana, and Republicans could condemn any investigation of Bush administration abuse of the republic as a partisan witch-hunt. Also, the Obama administration has a conflict of interest in pursuing investigations and prosecutions against Bush administration officials because now that Obama is president, he may not want to entirely discredit Bush’s precedents, which significantly expanded executive powers. Yet in the expanse of human history, the existence of republican government has been rare and short-lived by comparison. Even in recent years, when republicanism has spread the farthest, we forget how fragile the experiment is. The stakes are high, and the Obama administration needs to beat down the autocratic precedents left by the previous administration. The only way it can do so is by bringing criminal cases against the high level perpetrators...
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=14130
Are we civilized enough to hold our leaders accountable for war crimes?
AlterNet
by John W. Dean
01/26/09
It is difficult to believe that Eric Holder would agree not to enforce the law, like his recent Republican predecessors. Indeed, if he were to do so, President Obama should withdraw his nomination. But as MSNBC ‘Countdown’ anchor Keith Olbermann stated earlier this week, even if the Obama Administration for whatever reason does not investigate and prosecute these crimes, this still does not mean that the Bush Administration officials who were involved in torture are going to get a pass. With few exceptions, the discussion about what the Obama Administration will do regarding the torture of detainees during the Bush years has been framed as a domestic matter, and the fate of those involved in torturing has been largely viewed as a question of whether the Department of Justice will take action. In fact, not only is the world watching what the Obama Administration does regarding Bush’s torturers, but other countries are very likely to take action if the United States fails to do so...
http://tinyurl.com/by55ek
Bush was a big-government disaster
Reason
by Nick Gillespie
01/26/09
The most basic Bush numbers are damning. If increases in government spending matter, then Bush is worse than any president in recent history. During his first four years in office — a period during which his party controlled Congress — he added a whopping $345 billion (in constant dollars) to the federal budget. The only other presidential term that comes close? Bush’s second term. As of November 2008, he had added at least an additional $287 billion on top of that (and the months since then will add significantly to the bill). To put that in perspective, consider that the spendthrift LBJ added a mere $223 billion in total additional outlays in his one full term. If spending under Bush was a disaster, regulation was even worse...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/131264.html
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Obama
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Bush+legacy
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=executive+powers
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=torture
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=detainee
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=war+crimes
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Ivan+Eland
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Olbermann
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=John+W.+Dean
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Nick+Gillespie
rudkla - 27. Jan, 10:33
