I haven't read this or the  DOJ 2002 memo yet, but for anyone who has, is there any possibility of charging the President with War Crimes?  Looks like a long week of research ahead.  Also if anyone can help with relevant parts of Geneva Convention or other pertinent docs, I'd appreciate the direction.  

Just the thought of what I've read in the press concerning these memos makes me sick, and believe me I don't sicken easily.

Thanks,

Sarah

Oops found a great starting place on Slate.  Gotta get some sleep one of these days.

It's hard to figure out who was worse in this - Bush and his gang of war criminals or the quivering buckets of jelly who call themselves the Democrats.

Wandreycerl - Bush.  Breaking a law ALWAYS trumps being a chicken.  Being afraid to do anything doesn't help anyone, but we should never equate the two.

Is this really the era of naked partisanship?  It's true, Republicans have been more than willing to cave into, and be a tool of, this administration.  But it also seems this magazine in particular has on occasion recently scolded leaders on the Democrats side for not having tighter control over their charges in congress. and the senate.  The magazine's point being than when faced with such a wall of solidarity, you have to be solid too.  It seems pretty easy these days to tag Republicans as selfish, bigoted, greedy religious zealots and nail the whole lot in that one shot.

From "Judgment at Nuremberg":

Ernst Janning: "What about those of us who knew better? We who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country! What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Hitler himself will be discarded... sooner or later. The country is in danger. We will march out of the shadows."

...

Judge Haywood: "But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national crisis, men - even able and extraordinary men - can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the imagination."

...

Ernst Janning: "Judge Haywood... the reason I asked you to come: Those people, those millions of people... I never knew it would come to that. You *must* believe it, *You must* believe it!"

Judge Haywood: "Herr Janning, it "came to that" the *first time* you sentenced a man to death you *knew* to be innocent. "

Historian: sadly, my suspicion is that even a Democratic President would pardon Mr. Bush for any and all actions he undertook in his capacity as Commander in Chief.  The stakes are too simply too high, and no President in his or her right mind would want to have his hands tied in war for fear of criminal pursuit.  At the end of the day, if Mr. Bush committed War Crimes (and the bar is really really high, so I doubt if his conduct in office, reprehensible as it might be, even came close), the penalty would have been impeachment - that is, a political judgement, rather than a purely legal one.  And whether that would have got anywhere in the middle of two wars ... well, I leave it to those who know better to pass judgement.

I also think that talk of criminal pursuit of Mr. Bush is difficult right now, because it tends to distract from the task at hand.  Really, the issue is not whether Bush should be in jail or Yoo pilloried in the next ABA Conference (his memo used as spitballs), but how to avoid this mess next time around.  Unfortunately, one will always have lawyers like Yoo who will bend and twist the law any which way to serve the client, and you will always have Presidents who would rely on such fantastical memos.  This is why there is a system of Checks and Balances in the United States.  The problem, sadly, is that the other two branches were not, and are still not, functioning.  

Criminal pursuit may be difficult and potentially something that can come back to bite future presidents and administrations. But the failure to impeach Bush (and/or Cheney -- whoever's president) is unforgivable. If nothing else, there's an obligation for us as a country to note -- strongly and clearly -- that this administration has violated our own constitution on pretty much a daily basis, and that it has committed terrible human rights violations.

We're a decade past Congress impeaching a president for a blowjob (and I don't want any silly blowback here about the "perjury" nonsense). Failure to impeach for real crimes is beyond decency.

If Bush and Cheney and Yoo are not tried for their crimes these crimes will stand as precedent and will  happen again. You don't just "bounce back" from end-run signing statements, the loss of habeas corpus, warrantless spying on U.S.  citizens, and detainee torture and rendition. And these criminals have proven that nothing -- not precedent, not normative methods, not the constitution itself -- stands in the way of a determined effort by greedy, ruthless True Believers. It was in fact shockingly easy.

No new legislation will amount to more than "we really, really mean it, don't usurp our freedoms, please", unless they are tried and convicted.

What has occurred isn't unprecedented. Roman senators gave the republic to Octavius, and were never able to retrieve it from that clan again. I don't trust the Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, ANYONE, to decline powers if so established.

America either re-asserts freedom or succumbs. And re-asserting our rights and freedoms requires a harsh but just condemnation commensurate with the treason that has occurred. I believe some of our founding fathers would have strung 'em up. We should at least require 10,000 hours of public service.

I for one would find it very gratifying to see W building Habitats for Humanity til he drops.

icarusr.

Great movie. Monty Clift's 10 minute scene as the Nazi castrated Jew was incredible. My son and I were just talking about that movie last week when we visited the Holocaust Museum in DC.  Also, Richard Widmark and Maxmillian Schell were superb adversaries....I think I may rent that one again this weekend...

I'm torn about this.  On one hand, I firmly believe that Bush and Cheney have bent the laws of this country too far, and deserve to be impeached.  However, that's not likely to happen, as everyone seems content in letting him ride out the rest of his term with record-low approval ratings.

As for prosecuting him after he leaves office, I think that would set a dangerous precedent and open up every president to politically motivated retribution after they left office.  Not a good thing.

But the rest of the Bush administration?  Hang 'em.  Clean house.  Prosecute as many of them as possible, fire the rest.  They willingly participated in illegal activities and, in the case of Yoo, found ways to excuse them.  Certainly would put the fear of god into the public sector, making people think twice about following orders that are blatantly illegal.

I'm still baffled how the nation got into a tizzy about Bill getting a hummer and lying about it, yet Bush detained people without authority, engaged in warrantless wiretapping (I almost typed 'wireless warranttapping" D'oh!) and blatantly lied to the American people when making the case for the war in Iraq.  What the hell is the American public thinking!?

Yoo is a slimy yes-man who would write a memo arguing that rain falls upwards if his superiors demanded it.  He has about as much interest in constitutional probity as my refrigerator.

Jaunty:  And what about Judy Garland or Marlene Dietrich?  I use two AV guides when I teach the meaning of the Rule of Law.  One is "Judgment" and the other is "Man for All Seasons".  The Yoo Memo is now going into the course materials as a counter-example.

Irony: to think that he is a law professor ... who'dda guessed that getting tenure at a prestigious law school in the US would be so easy?  Personally, I'd take your fridge over him to teach.

LISAH said it best.  It must be documented that we, the American People, eventually saw and came to understand the illegality of the actions committed by the Bush/Cheney administration and to prevent ANYONE, EVER, from using even small pieces as precedent to justify an activity, the duty is to impeach.  Regardless of the fact that we're coming into an election. Regardless of the fact that they'll be gone soon. Regardless of anything--the conduct was clearly illegal (should be obvious to any thinking person by now).  This is not partisan hysteria or retribution.  If a "minor crime" such as perjury (and yes, it is important to note exactly what was being lied about; that makes it an even lesser crime) can initiate impeachment proceedings, well then, that is precedent enough to get this thing going.  But who's going to spin it properly to get the public on-board?  perhaps no support for your re-election congressperson if you don't begin doing your duty (since you are derelict in failing to check and balance to begin with).