As President, Obama Will Have The Constitutional Duty To Prosecute Bush For War Crimes

[kpete]

As President, Obama will have the constitutional duty to faithfully execute our laws.

The constitutional oath of office requires that our President faithfully execute the office of President and preserve, protect and defend our Constitution. Our constitution also requires that our presidents "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The principle of the rule of law is partially based on this Faithfully Execute clause which requires our President to comply with laws, our Constitution and treaties because our Constitution established a government of laws, not of men and women.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/343/579/case.html

.....................

AG nominee Eric Holder knows that many crimes have been committed:

Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution.... We owe the American people a reckoning.

Much more at:
http://www.docudharma.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11188

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Yeah, like Congress had the duty to impeach Bush and Cheney for the same

But look at what that got us. :eyes:

[Phred42]

2. Pelosi had this duty also. And ignored it.

Does that mean we can impeach her too?

[Fireweed247]

18. There MUST be something we can do

when our elected officials ignore their oath of office?!

[rhett o rick]

20. LOL, surely you jest. WE NO LONGER LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. nm

[Phred42]

30. POint

[DrDan]

3. it is not going to happen

[Mike Daniels]

15. Nope and if a country tried to arrest Bush or Cheney Obama would raise holy hell.

Not that they'd succeed in the first place since the Secret Service would keep anyone attempting that effort at bay.

[Independent_Liberal]

26. If you keep saying it won't, then it won't.

What I try to do is get people to change their mindset. It's not easy, but I do what I can.

[rhett o rick]

31. Yes, and if you say that it will, it still won't. The mindset that needs to be changed

is that we live in a free democracy. As long as the public believes that fantasy, there is no hope. The republicans got away with stealing two presidential elections without a whimper from the Democratic Party, from the news media, and even from the general public. Then there is the war, torture, spying, etc. etc. The country is being run by the New American Aristocracy. Obama's win is only a slight irritant to them.

We need a new Declaration of Independence and go from there. We need to declare a nation emergency and nationalize the industries critical to our existence. We need to bust up the Military/Industrial/Media complex or we will go broke soon.

[earth mom]

4. K & R, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

:argh:

[natrat]

5. you think w/ the people in his cabinet he is going after anyone?let alone bush

[Richardo]

6. What's the mechanism for forcing Obama to perform this so-called 'duty'?

Here's a plan: Constitutional deep-thinkers can mobilize another eight-year 'impeach-a-thon' because Obama will never never prosecute Bush for ANYTHING. And then whoever is elected in 2016 undergoes another hysterical impeach-a-thon because he/she will never never prosecute Obama for not prosecuting Bush. And so on. Ad infinitum.

Who wouldn't want to live in that utopia? Besides me, I mean.

I've got a better idea: Constitutional deep-thinkers live out their sad, narrowly-defined lives in bitter disappointment that Bush never went to trial, and the rest of us get on with trying to rebuild and recover some of the former greatness of this country.

[rhett o rick]

21. WE NO LONGER LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

24. "the rest of us get on with trying to rebuild and recover .."

TRY as you like and TRY as you may. if justice is not served you WILL NOT succeed.
What measure of "greatness" remains if all is decay and injustice ?

The criminals need to pay or everyone else will be footimg their bill amd that on more than one level amd in more than manner.

[Independent_Liberal]

27. Just what I was going to say.

There will be no "rebuilding and recovering" until there is a reckoning.

[flvegan]

7. Agreed, but I'm not holding my breath.

[ronnykmarshall]

8. If only Cindy Sheehan had won Speaker of the House Election

in San Francisco!!!

[DavidDvorkin]

9. Quibble: that race was for the House seat, not the Speaker position

If Sheehan had won the race, she would not have become the Speaker.

[Richardo]

10. Adjust your irony-o-meter

He's having a bit of fun.

[Richardo]

11. !!

:rofl:

[EstimatedProphet]

12. True!

Because she could have then been installed as Speaker, forced impeachment of Bush and Cheney (which would only take a day anyway), and become President!

[Zuni]

14. But Cindy did win

in our hearts. :grouphug:

[rhett o rick]

22. Pelosi is an incumbent. She is untouchable in the primary. Until that changes, we are totally fucked

[LWolf]

13. Having a duty and fulfilling it are two different things.

It's not going to happen.

[Autumn]

16. Yes he has that duty , but

it remains to be seen if he will do it. I doubt it very much.

[Igel]

17. He has to make sure the laws are faithfully executed.

So, in prosecuting *, what law will he ensure is being faithfully executed?

Not, "what law will he be acting in accordance with", because there are a lot of laws that the prez or the DA has the *option* of operating in accordance with. But they can also simply do nothing, and not break those laws. Rather like driving: If I drive, I obey the speed limit and use turn signals, because the laws say I shall. But I can choose to not act in accordance with them simply by taking the bus. Voila: No turn signals on my part required.


Is there a law requiring that every infraction of a law be prosecuted? That the president is obligated to appoint a special counsel or prosecutor if he believes certain laws have been broken? Or is it the case he *may* appoint a special prosecutor: Note that "shall" often boils down to "may"--"shall" says how he must act, but doesn't mean he *must* act. Just as with driving: I shall use the turn signals isn't a requirement that I drive; it's saying if I drive and turn, there's the requirement to use turn signals.

You can argue moral duty, but that's different from a Constitutional requirement in oh so many cases. Best to keep "right" (or "moral") and "legal" separate since they are, really, radically distinct things.

[bottomtheweaver]

28. Bush and his stooges committed multiple crimes against individuals

including torture, illegal arrest and imprisonment, and murder, and those individuals and their heirs are legally and morally entitled to justice according to the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols to which the U.S. is a signatory:

The Conventions and their Protocols call for measures to be taken to prevent (or put an end to) what are known as "grave breaches"; those responsible for breaches must be punished.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions

Sorry, it's the law. :shrug:

[bertman]

19. Yes, and Bush was bound by his oath to uphold the Constitution and enforce all laws

and treaties. Look how that worked out.

What we're going to find out with our new, inspiring President is that he and Bush are both hired help and they dance to the tune their pipers play. And it ain't OUR favorite tune.

[rhett o rick]

23. And Congress was supposed to keep him in check. Our democracy isn't working. nm

[Independent_Liberal]

25. But DU has to be as negative as possible. "It's not gonna happen," "We no longer live in a democracy

..., etc., etc., etc.

If we give up, nothing will happen.

[bottomtheweaver]

29. Absolutely. It's one of the gravest duties of the office he will soon hold

and while I don't imagine he'll enjoy it, if he fails to perform it or allows existing crimes such as the illegal detentions at Guantanemo to continue, that too will be a crime against humanity according to Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as explained in overview here:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva, 12 August 1949):

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5

The number of "grave breaches" the US is guilty of is really staggering:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5ZMGF9