A question for all 30,000 members of DU.

While reading a small periodical today I came across this commentary:

Entitled: Bush in a cage

"I will vote for and give my total suppport to the first Democratic
candidate to pledge to have Bush tried for treason and war crimes,
and be given the maximum penalty for those crimes; and to use the
so-called Patriot Act to name the rest of his gang as "unlawful
combatants" and throw them into cages in Guantanamo, forever"

Who among you agrees with this sentiment?

Who among you disagrees with this sentiment, and if so why?


I heartily agree with what the writer expressed and I wonder which
of the Democratic candidates has the fortitude to stand up and do this.

Yes, they should be tried for treason, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

No, Guantanamo would be cruel and unusual punishment. Don't stoop to their level.

Maybe, What else does this mythical person stand for? How does he/she propose to up-right the Ship of State and get it back on course? To correct the Treasurary raids, Enron, Bu$h's damage to this country and the world, so it won't happen again.

nt

hehehehe

Is this a requirement here at DU?

and a bit of hyperbole.

Great fighting words, but I doubt it would be a particularly good idea to actually try them for treason or war crimes, even though a good argument could be made for their guilt.

The "maximum penalty" for treason is, of course, death, and the thought of Shrub living out 10 years of appeals at Polunsky has a certain appeal in itself. Almost enough to get me over my opposition to capital punishment, but not quite.

Nah, it would never happen. Shouldn't happen. Far too many legal problems with elected officials having immunity from prosecution for acts done while in office, far too many political problems with the country torn apart, and far too much bloodlust going to hack Shrub into little pieces like some people tried to do with Clinton.

Best thing to do is send this crew back into obscurity crying in the wilderness and let history remember them as the worst administration this country has ever had. November 2004 will be a very important month in our country's history.

Then try to rebuild what they destroyed.

Justice may not be served, but sometimes serving justice is not the most important thing.

(I'd go for impeachment, though. Big time!)

they have their tendrills in all aspects of the global economy... HEll they could live in Saddam's old palaces, and since Iraq is now a deregulator's free-market wet dream, they might even prefer it!

that said, while I do WHOLEHEARTEDLY support trying these demons for war crimes, it's not our only concern right now. Once they are out of office I say round 'em up, smoke 'em out, and bring them to ERAL justice, not this cowboy crap

"Justice may not be served, but sometimes serving justice is not the most important thing."

If an administration can get away with theft, murder and all manner of crime, and people think it's
no big deal, what does that say about those people?

What, in your view is more important?

My fear with is that, while it sounds like a great rally cry, whoever trys to prosecute this as war crimes is going suffer for it. I think the writers underestimates how strongly 'Murkins believe that the U.S. is not subject to international law. Best case scenario: a backlash that makes the current political situation seem like junior prom. Worst case scenario; I dont even want to think about it.

Especially those which erode democracy. So starting with crimes commited during election 2000 and including those during the bush*sucks crime spree. It's not a matter of a vendetta against bush*sucks but a desire to enforce the law.

and hope he wins.


I was agnostic on the war and oppose almost all of Bush's policies and think he is so wrong for the country but I don't think he's a traitor just a hopelessly reactionary man being led by a hopelessly reactionary cabal.

Yes to Dems in 04

No to showtrials.

put them OUT OF BUSINESS.

to pardon himself before leaving office. Oh and anyone who can testify against him.

His henchmen should be tried as well. It will be more than he allowed Saddam's sons and probably Saddam in the long run.

Treason is a strong word, and enacting a policy with which you don't agree isn't treason. If it was, then every politician who ever served could be convicted of treason. Would the members of Congress who voted for the Resolution also be thrown in Gitmo for war crimes? Unless you can lay down a clear and precise set of crimes, I'm inclined to say you are barking up the wrong tree.

Can't ever differentiate between an administration lying and manufacturing evidence for a war and those who had no way of knowing it was going on.

I agree with you that a candidate calling for putting the President up on war crimes is ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is holding Congress responsible for the intentional lies and deception of this administration.

From the poor persecuted white guys who are still avenging NIXON.

I wouldn't ask a candidate to run from it, but I wouldn't insist.

However, I have no trouble with putting so much pressure on Republicans that THEY do it.

If such a candidate could realistically win, I'd vote for him.

Yes, I beleive Bush and his aides should be bound over to an international tribunal to stand trial for war crimes in Iraq.

and it'll never happen!

they don't have to make that pledge, just beat him, take office and undo as much of what he's done as possible.

No Democratic candidate would win on a platform like this. It's ridiculous. I wouldn't vote for a Democrat trying to invoke or inflame a jihad. That's not to say I wouldn't like to see the bush crime family exposed for the crooks they are and pay a penalty, but making absurd promises that have no chance of succeeding is not the way to go about it.

we can have a real investgation of the 9/11 terrorist bombing in which the administration is proved to have allowed the strike, perhaps even colluded to make it happen along with the Saudi and Pakistan extremist intelligence agencies. I think the administration would OK the strike because it puts them closer to ending abortion in america, some thing which those religious kooks who took power think is the holocaust. The terrorist bombing gave them hegemony at home and a ticket to try to take over the moslem third world. If we get real proof certainly they are guilty of treason. The only way we could get the proof is if people can talk without getting killed.
I'd vote for the candidate who says we will get a real investigation not another Warren report.