Skip to main content

Do not be swayed by lawyers with long resumes who try to convince you that granting procedural immunity to Cheney and Dubya "in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law" is the best and only option.  Don't forget the torture lawyers.  Some lawyers are skilled at making fallacious arguments that twist the truth.  

You don't need to be a lawyer to see through the specious arguments in favor of granting Cheney, Bush, et al "procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law."  Our outrage is warranted here.

The warmongers may not do body counts, but thousands upon thousands of people died and were maimed based on lies, yes, lies, not mistakes.  They not only sifted and cherry picked intel to go to war in Iraq, a country that has oil, but lied to Congress.  They even tortured people to make false statements to corroborate their lies.  They bankrupted our nation to enrich themselves with these horrific wars, and they are the ones who should be prosecuted and serving life sentences, not Bradley Manning, a brave person with a conscience who released a video, Collateral Murder, which brutally showed just one of their many war crimes.

Below the twisties I will untangle their web of spin and set the record straight.  

1.  The law is the problem.

No, the weasels who don't apply the law to prosecute war criminals are the problem.  The weasels who grant war criminals "procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law" are the problem.  The Congressional weasels who disobeyed their oath of office by taking impeachment off the table are the problem.  The weasels who made spying on us retroactively "legal" are the problem. The weasels who "legalized" torture are the problem.  The weasels who believe the US Constitution is just a "god damned piece of paper" to be overturned Amendment by Amendment are the problem.  The weasels who don't investigate crimes against humanity, or if they do, put weasels in charge of the "inquiry" that is less than thorough and less than sincere are the problem.  The weasels who let the weasels off the hook for Iran Contra only to hatch other conspiracies are the problem. Yes, conspiracies.  That's what they do in their think tanks: conspire.  The Iraq War was based on CT about mushroom clouds and yellowcake.  That's why weasels cry project CT all the time.  They vilify and humiliate anyone who dares to pull back the curtain or question their ever changing version of events.

2.  The US has a history of lying us into wars, committing genocide against indigenous people, and enslaving people, so these latest war crimes fall in line with precedent and are grandfathered in.

No, just because the US has gotten away with previous wrongdoing is not an excuse to permit the US to continue to commit crimes against humanity.  That's the old two wrongs makes a right fallacy.  Don't fall for it.

3.  We must spare our country the drama of either a criminal prosecution or a civil case against a former or sitting POTUS.  That canard is what gives bad Presidents the audacity to wage illegal war after war.  We the People need to be spared illegal wars, not civil litigation against or criminal prosecuting the war criminals who start them.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (13+ / 0-)

    Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 09:51:30 AM PDT

  •  They are NOT being granted immunity (11+ / 0-)

    from criminal prosecution.  The "immunity" is in the form of the US government intervening in a civil lawsuit to take the place of the named individuals as the tortfeasor.  This issue has nothing to do with immunity from criminal prosecution.  

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 09:56:42 AM PDT

    •  Please read David Swanson's article: (4+ / 0-)

      Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War

      Procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.

      Plaintiff Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan, filed a complaint in March 2013 in San Francisco federal court alleging that the planning and waging of the war constituted a “crime of aggression” against Iraq, a legal theory that was used by the Nuremberg Tribunal to convict Nazi war criminals after World War II.

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 10:07:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Procedural immunity, yes, but it's a case that (4+ / 0-)

      alleges they violated international war.  You are splitting hair here.

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 10:10:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  International law, I mean. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gooderservice

        Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 10:11:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No. The issue you raise relates to (9+ / 0-)

        criminal punishment.  The immunity they are getting is NOT from criminal prosecution. It is only from civil lawsuit.  That is not "splitting hairs".  It is a real, FACTUAL distinction.

        With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

        by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 10:12:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  By right, they should be prosecuted, but (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Q, aliasalias

          the weasels in our government are derelict.

          The woman is bringing forth this civil suit, because we can't count on our government to do the right thing and prosecute the war criminals.  The government is too busy prosecuting whistle blowers who expose war crimes and crimes against the American people.

          The civil suit is all we have to bring them to justice so far, yet the weasels want to grant them procedural immunity even from this civil suit.  

          It's a travesty.

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 10:23:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I am debunking the fallacious arguments in (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias

          favor of granting them procedural immunity in that civil lawsuit that peppered a diary here recently.

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 10:59:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, I opined they should be criminally prosecuted, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias

          but I refer to David Swanson's article.

          I am outraged that the PTB are asking the DOJ to grant Bush, Cheney, at al procedural immunity from this civil suit.

          War crimes and torture are not in their job description, period.

          K?

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 12:04:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  One caveat there. Had they been convicted (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias, pfiore8

          of the criminal acts, then they could not be granted civil immunity, because their acts - such as ordering torture - would have been beyond the scope of their respective offices.

          By failing to prosecute Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld criminally - the Administration effectively CREATED the civil immunity.

          The word is, I believe . . . CAHOOTS.

          Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

          by bobdevo on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 12:17:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Is this the same issue that John Ashcroft got a (0+ / 0-)

          walk on about ten or so years ago?

      •  No, it's really not splitting hairs... (7+ / 0-)

        ...to point out that their immunity from civil suits while acting within the bounds of their executive positions is not the same thing as immunity from criminal prosecution for those actions—particularly when your post implies that they have received immunity from criminal prosecution.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 10:17:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The POTUS is not above the law. By not (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Q, aliasalias, TheMomCat

          impeaching the war criminals and not prosecuting them, they have already in essence been granted a form of immunity which has given a victim of their illegal war no recourse but to file a civil suit.

          I am against granting Cheney, Bush, et al procedural immunity in this civil suit.

          They are not above the law.  Government employees, even in the executive branch, are not above the law.  Government employees, even in the executive branch, are not above international law.  Government employees, even in the executive branch, are not above the US Constitution.

          Nixon thought so, but he was wrong.

          Let the civil suit be tried.  The system of checks and balances our forefathers built into our government has been subverted.  This civil suit is the only justice we have left, and here the PTB are trying to subvert that, too, by granting them procedural immunity.

          It's outrageous.

          I'm sorry, but I am outraged by the death and destruction, or the collateral damage as the spinmeisters like to call dead and maimed children, parents, grandparents...

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 10:56:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, Nixon had civil immunity. (0+ / 0-)

            And the plaintiffs don't have recourse to a civil suit; this suck-ass piece of garbage will be thrown out on its ear at the first chance.

            •  Was that civil immunity... (0+ / 0-)

              ...simply by virtue of his being the chief executive, or because in his case there was also no legal finding of fact that he had committed crimes while in office, both because he was never prosecuted and because he was preemptively pardoned by Ford?

              In other words, if he hadn't been pardoned and if he had been convicted of criminal charges in the Watergate cover-up, and if someone had filed a civil suit against him alleging damages resulting from that cover-up, would he have retained civil immunity despite a legal finding that he wasn't acting within the scope of his federal office?

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 11:06:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  he had civil immunity because the alleged (1+ / 0-)

                torts were committed w/in the scope of his duty.

                the pardon had nothing to do w/ it.  

                re: finding that he acted in the scope of duty: that's what the case held.  That he did.

                •  Is what Bush, Cheney, at al did, lying to Congress (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Johnny Q, aliasalias

                  and the American people to start a needless war within the confines of their office?

                  No, it was not.

                  Was torture within the confines of their employment?

                  No, it was not.

                  It's time to look back.

                  It's not as black and white as you try to make it out to be.  It's not garbage at all.  It's very necessary to the future of our country to stop this organized illegal activity.

                  Office of Special Plans, anyone?

                  This has to stop.

                  I'm sick of looking forward, not back and seeing my country go down the toilet morally and fiscally.

                  Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                  by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 12:00:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  If there had been a formal legal finding... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CIndyCasella

                  ...that he acted criminally, wouldn't that make the criminal acts fall outside the scope of his duty (since it's not part of the President's duty to engage in criminal acts), and therefore leave him open to a civil suit for damages resulting from those specific acts?

                  "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                  by JamesGG on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 12:05:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yeah, maybe, but there was nothing illegal (1+ / 0-)

                    under domestic law - which is all that matters for present purposes - about attacking Iraq.

                    •  I don't know that that's necessarily the case. (0+ / 0-)

                      I think a prosecutor could successfully press the charge that George W. Bush and his administration knowingly lied to Congress about their confidence in the existence of weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the war.

                      If you're counting torture as part of the Iraq War (rather than a separate matter entirely), I think there's definitely a criminal case to be made there as well.

                      But the important distinction is that neither of those cases have been successfully prosecuted as of yet—and thus, for the purposes of the law, George W. Bush etc. remain innocent until proven guilty.

                      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                      by JamesGG on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 12:41:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Cheney? Wolfowitz? There is no badly (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Johnny Q

              ruled precedent there.  

              Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 11:20:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I find this argument problematic. (3+ / 0-)
            By not impeaching the war criminals and not prosecuting them, they have already in essence been granted a form of immunity which has given a victim of their illegal war no recourse but to file a civil suit.
            So your argument is that because others haven't upheld the rule of law, we should just throw out the rule of law ourselves and support any legal attacks thrown at Bush et al.—no matter how terrible a precedent is set by the use of those legal attacks, and no matter how many centuries of American legal doctrine we have to set aside—in order to punish them?

            I completely agree that Bush et al. should have been prosecuted, tried, and convicted of violations of international law. G-d willing, someday they still will be.

            But in the meantime, American law does not allow for civil suits against individuals in government who were acting within the scope of their office, and there has been absolutely no legal finding of fact in any court recognized by the U.S. that Bush et al. were not doing so.

            The remedy against those who have damaged the rule of law is not to damage it further in order to save it.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 11:03:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The terrible precedent was Nixon v Fitzgerald (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Johnny Q, aliasalias
              The trial and appellate court rejected the President's claim of immunity and the case went to the Supreme Court.
              wiki

              The Supreme Court is stacked with right wing kooks who interpret the US Constitution as moot unfortunately and are turning out democracy into an autocracy.

              Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  FELRTCA doesn't apply to violation of Constitution (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias

              or federal statutes.

              However, the immunity conferred by FELRTCA does not extend or apply to suits against federal employees for violation of the Constitution or federal statutes
              Immunity of Government Officers Sued as Individuals for Official Acts

              Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 11:31:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  there's no allegation in the lawsuit (0+ / 0-)

                that Bush violated either the constitution or any federal statute.

                eg, it's a straightforward, "I know this lawsuit is frivolous, but I'd like to get in the newspapers, please."

                •  Torture? Water boarding? Use of white (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aliasalias

                  phosphorous?  Depleted Uranium which is causing horrific birth defects and cancer?  

                  Was Saddam Hussein involved in 9/ 11?  No.  That's what the AUMF stipulated, and that was not the case, so the war was not legal.

                  Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

                  by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 12:16:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  are you being intentionally obtuse? (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Here's the AUMF, in full. (2+ / 0-)

                    Link

                    Nowhere in the AUMF is it stipulated that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. It does accuse Iraq of harboring members of al-Qaeda, but that document does not charge that Hussein was involved in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks.

                    But all that is beside the point, because no court of law recognized by the United States judicial system has ever formally found that the Iraq War was not legal, nor that the administration officials involved in planning, supporting, and executing that war engaged in criminal wrongdoing in the process.

                    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                    by JamesGG on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 12:24:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  So please point me to the case.... (0+ / 0-)

                ....where it was legally found that George W. Bush's actions relating to the Iraq War were outside the bounds of his constitutional powers, or in violation of any federal statute.

                Absent a formal legal finding that Bush was acting outside the scope of his office, procedural immunity applies to him.

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 12:08:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  What about treaties which are also the law of the (0+ / 0-)

                nation?

                It seems that the premise here is that no civilian has civil standing to sue an elected official for what they did using their electoral title, regardless of what they did. In this case, it seems the premise is that direct injury was done to the plaintiffs by what the defendants did in their official capacities, to authorize those who did the direct hurting, and the problem is that after Ashcroft, authorizing it may not be good enough to defeat a standing challenge.

                Except I personally (Hello, international law specialists) don't know of any precedent for standing or want of it when the claim is that the elected one doing X violated an international treaty to which the US was subject at the time of doing whatever was done.

        •  War lies & war crimes were not legitimate scope of (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Q, aliasalias

          their employment.

          "The DOJ claims that in planning and waging the Iraq War, ex-President Bush and key members of his Administration were acting within the legitimate scope of their employment and are thus immune from suit,” chief counsel Inder Comar of Comar Law said.

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 11:37:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you. (4+ / 0-)

      This is an important point that I think the writer of this post overlooks... neither the suit nor the procedural immunity have anything to do with criminal charges.

      This is all about a civil lawsuit—and, as I was writing yesterday, absent any previously-existing legal finding of fact that Bush et al. were acting outside the bounds of their office, it would set a dangerous precedent for them to be individually liable in civil court for their actions while in office, as they were acting as the US government from a legal standpoint.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 10:14:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's what they filed (6+ / 0-)

    http://warisacrime.org/...

    Would you kindly point out to me what you see here as the fallacy?

  •  Bush has immunity whether or not the DOJ (3+ / 0-)

    certified that they acted in the scope of the official duties.  Even the plaintiffs know they do, hence this passage from the complaint:

    Plaintiff is aware of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) in which the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the President of the United States possesses immunity in civil court for actions taken pursuant to his official duties as President. Plaintiff submits that Nixon is distinguishable in that she alleges violations of accepted customary norms of international law. Plaintiff submits that Nixon does not prohibit a cause of action against the President or any other Executive official who engages in behavior considered reprehensible in a civilized society, such as torture, crimes against humanity, or the crime of aggression. To the extent that Nixon stands for the proposition that the person holding the office of President cannot be held civilly liable for violations of accepted customary norms of international law – such as torture, crimes against humanity or the crime of aggression – then Plaintiff submits that Nixon is wrongly decided and in direct contravention of accepted principles of the common law, particularly the principle that rulers are “under God and the law.”
  •  I don't recall anyone saying anything at all (0+ / 0-)

    along the lines of (2) or (3).

  •  "the weasels ... are the problem" Exactly. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CIndyCasella, Johnny Q, aliasalias

    For example, Bush, Cheney and RUmsfeld ADMITTED ordering enhanced interrogations, which were at all time relevant hereto a violation of the anti-torture language in Title 18 US Code.

    If the Obama Administration had prosecuted - and easily convicted the malefactors - it would be clear they were acting outside of the scope of their offices.  The Convention Against Torture - which the US signed and then effectuated thru the anti-torture statute - provides there can be no excuses for torture under any circumstances.

    Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

    by bobdevo on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 12:13:51 PM PDT

    •  Thank you, bobdevo. I can't get over how invested (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobdevo, aliasalias

      these people are defending Bush and Cheney et al and are frantically interpreting the Nixon v. Fitzgerald  decision to grant all of them immunity from this civil suit, which they angrily call garbage.

      It's mind boggling how outraged these folks are about a civil suit against war criminals.

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 12:21:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm the opposite of outraged. (0+ / 0-)

        this is a silly, fake issue.

      •  That's a very inappropriate comment. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kerflooey

        In characterizing those who disagree with you as "angry," "frantic," "outraged," and "invested [...] in defending Bush and Cheney et al," you are casting aspersions on their motivations and psychology from afar, and attributing positions to them that I know for a fact (as one of those people) that they do not hold.

        Such ad hominem attacks are not at all appropriate for this community. Please do not engage in them again.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 12:33:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Is this comment appropriate? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bobdevo, aliasalias
          And the plaintiffs don't have recourse to a civil suit; this suck-ass piece of garbage will be thrown out on its ear at the first chance.

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 01:11:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Given that the epithet describes the lawsuit.... (0+ / 0-)

            ...and not any human being, I don't see it as inappropriate.

            If the lawsuit were capable of taking offense, I'm sure it would be mightily offended—but given that it's a piece of paper and therefore lacks a cerebral cortex or any of the neural functions that would enable it to feel any kind of emotion at all, I'm going to go ahead and say that it isn't bothered by the insult.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 01:20:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Who appointed you the nanny? n/t (0+ / 0-)

          Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

          by bobdevo on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 02:24:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We're all responsible for our part... (0+ / 0-)

            ...in ensuring that the discussion on this site remains respectful of others.

            If you disagree with my comment, then please do tell me how I'm wrong in labeling the above comment an ad hominem, or, alternatively, why you don't think it's inappropriate for users to engage in ad hominem attacks against other users.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 02:35:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  They are war criminals (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobdevo, JamesGG

        on your say so? No need to bother with such a quaint thing as a trial.

        At the least, call them "alleged war criminals."

        •  Obama has decided to look forward, not back on (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bobdevo, aliasalias

          the war crimes.  PTB has looked carefully back on whistle blowers and has tried to prosecute several of them using the Espionage Act, which has failed, rightfully so.  

          John Kiriakou is serving time for blowing the whistle on torture, but the torturers are being protected from prosecution.

          It's a travesty of justice.

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 01:04:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  1,000,000 dead Iraqi civilians killed by (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CIndyCasella, aliasalias

          an invasion based on lies and misrepresentations = war criminals.

          Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

          by bobdevo on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 02:25:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So much for due process. (0+ / 0-)

            By suggesting that the Iraq War should be considered outside the scope of the executive branch's duty without any legal process establishing it as such, you're advocating for our court system to consider them war criminals without any trial or due process.

            Do you believe that they should be considered innocent under the law until proven guilty in a court of law?

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Fri Aug 23, 2013 at 02:40:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site