Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Bush in Jail  (Read 4248 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2008, 07:38:10 PM »

I think part of the problem is that Obama has not campaigned - has not even mentioned - what his intentions are regarding Bush. At least not in any dramatic public way. So, it doesn't smell like Justice (even if that's what it is) as much as "O wait LOL".

But fuck that shit. Here's what's important: If by the laws of the land President Bush is or was guilty of one or more high crimes then you have serious problem. One way bigger than a mere corrupt and evil president.

See, as has been pointed out, this isn't an administration vs. administration thing. This is an independant judicial thing.

The consitution does not state that the check on the president's power is the next president. No, according to the American system of checks and balances, the Justice system should investigate and accusations of wrongdoing on the part of any citizen - including the president. If a sitting president is found guilty (or is hanging by a rope of his of his own making, a la Nixon), it falls to congress to initiate a congressional investigation and initiate impeachment procedings if necessary.

Again, it is NOT the incoming president's responsibility.

The problem with an Obama investigation is that any push to indict Bush or his cronies will basically point out that the American system of checks and balances suffered nearly a complete collapse during the Bush administration. Whether they were actually complicit or merely appallingly spineless is irrelevant: The Democrats were in it up to their fucking EYEBALLS and the Judiciary either turned a blind eye or can now be successfully stonewalled, either of which are huge problems all on their own.

The shitpile is compounded by the fact that Bush's crimes are not nearly so clear-cut as Nixon's. With Watergate there was a clear crime (break and enter, illegal surveillance, etc.) and a trail that basically led back to a President ordering some shady doings. In Bush's case it's much more of a case of immoral and dangerous policies enacted by the government. yes, Bush's crimes are actually much worse, but their guise of legitimacy is so much greater. This is aided by the fact that nearly everything was basically done above board, making it infinitely easier to rationalize them away. And if anything was done under cover of shadow... well, if there's one thing I would trust a Bush scion to do, it's cover his fucking tracks so as to avoid winding up like Dick.

Unlike watergate where the crime was blatant basic thuggery, recognised by almost anybody as a 'criminal act' Bush's crimes are things that people will debate as 'legitimate'. Hell, that's what your country was DOING for the past five or six years. Whereas Nixon was quickly abandoned by almost everyone, if the call goes out to prosecute Bush, much of the country will not be on board that train. And if you don't believe that, well, just go back and look at footage from any McCain/Palin rallies in September or October.

Now, if knowing this, you think the United States is in need of the long melodrama that will result in such an investigation, then by all means you should do it. The fact that the American democracy near bottomed out is pretty fucking important. But as with anything, there's a tradeoff. Such a debate will dominate everything and may even taint Obama. Certainly if the Democrats try to burn the GOP, well, the Republicans will certainly make sure the Democrats look like shit if no one else will. The Democrats can't take the high ground here because they fucking gave it away at least two years ago. They have been a key party to this travesty during most of the Bush administration. Or at the very, very least the last two years. Any true and honest investigation MUST confront this incredibly ugly fact, otherwise it IS just partisan revenge.

The alternative is to let Obama play messiah, talk about other pressing things (economy etc.), and gloss over the whole thing.

Both options suck a hell of a lot of ass. So the question is basically which particular cock would you like shoved in your anus today?
Logged

Romosome

  • Tested
  • Karma: 20
  • Posts: 1841
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2008, 07:42:53 PM »

This thread sounds like it was referencing a specific bit of news before it was split and now it's kind of contextless beyond "maybe Bush should go to jail for _____"

I'm assuming the blank to be "everything" at the moment
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2008, 07:48:14 PM »

War crimes.  Specifically, authorizing the use of torture.

In theory this could be an international investigation, but fuck if we want to waste everybody's time.
Logged

LaserBeing

  • invisible murder cube
  • Tested
  • Karma: 25
  • Posts: 1261
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #23 on: November 13, 2008, 07:56:38 PM »

You're only held accountable for war crimes if you LOSE a war. Duh.

Why do you think he was so eager for everyone to "stay the course"?
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #24 on: November 13, 2008, 09:49:40 PM »

You can't relect a President and then try and slap the cuffs on him for continuing to do the same thing he was already doing for 3.5 years.

Jesus fucking Christ, Geo.  I know you're not from here, but people mentioned Watergate THREE TIMES before your post.  FIVE if you count the thread this was split from.  Saying "A President can't be held accountable for his crimes if he's elected to a second term" is stupid enough if people HAVEN'T just REPEATEDLY MENTIONED A HISTORICAL EXAMPLE OF THAT VERY FUCKING THING HAPPENING.

...Anyway.  Whoever titled this is pretty much completely fucking misrepresenting the point I was trying to make in the first place.

Bush doesn't need to go to jail.  But there do need to be investigations.

Ford's failure wasn't in pardoning Nixon.  It was in failing to get a confession out of him first.  And letting his buddies off the hook.
Logged

Detonator

  • You made me come back for THIS?
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 42
  • Posts: 3040
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2008, 09:55:05 PM »

...Anyway.  Whoever titled this is pretty much completely fucking misrepresenting the point I was trying to make in the first place.

Bush doesn't need to go to jail.  But there do need to be investigations.

Guilty.  I just liked the sound of this title and it was the first thing that came to mind, so :nyoro~n:

I agree.  It's not Obama is donning some tac gear and storming the Bush compound to bring him to justice.  It's just a legal inquiry into what went wrong during those times, and if the crimes happen to go up to the President, then that's what will happen, and it will be out of Obama's hands at that point.
Logged
"Imagine punching somebody so hard that they turned into a door. Then you found out that's where ALL doors come from, and you got initiated into a murder club that makes doors. The stronger you punch, the better the door. So there are like super strong murderers who punch people into Venetian doors and shit"

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2008, 10:12:45 PM »

Great, now this thread's title is making me think of something completely different.
Logged

SCD

  • Tested
  • Karma: 18
  • Posts: 1856
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2008, 10:50:03 PM »

Quick question - how long after a crime is committed does the prosecution have to lay charges?

Keep in mind that your justice system is in need of some minor social reforms here and there.. 

Oh, and hi Brent.
Logged

Bal

  • Cheerful in the face of nuclear armageddon
  • Tested
  • Karma: 62
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2008, 11:02:19 PM »

I don't know of any established statute of limitations on war crimes, assuming that's what would be the charge.
Logged

Bongo Bill

  • Dinosaurcerer
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65431
  • Posts: 5244
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2008, 11:11:58 PM »

A peaceful transfer of power is one of the important things about a democracy. If he's to be investigated, it would be better to begin with impeachment rather than wait until he leaves office. A president who is suspected of breaking the law should face formal accusation from the legislative branch, rather than from his successor's executive branch.
Logged
...but is it art?

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2008, 11:20:22 PM »

A peaceful transfer of power is one of the important things about a democracy. If he's to be investigated, it would be better to begin with impeachment rather than wait until he leaves office.

It sure would!

Notice how that hasn't happened?

A president who is suspected of breaking the law should face formal accusation from the legislative branch, rather than from his successor's executive branch.

An investigation by Conyers is one of the possible solutions.

...You know what?  I'm going to merge the beginning of this conversation into this thread, because nobody seems to have actually read the fucking article.
Logged

Rico

  • Tested
  • Karma: 18
  • Posts: 1916
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2008, 11:25:08 PM »

Mild counterpoint in that the American people weren't reelecting Nixon with pretty clear evidence that he'd already ordered repeated breakings and enterings.

Re: Doom's mention of electoral college.  Popular vote in elections will never matter as long as the electoral college exists.  Pointing to the popular vote total is therefore retarded.
Logged

Bongo Bill

  • Dinosaurcerer
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65431
  • Posts: 5244
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2008, 11:30:35 PM »

A peaceful transfer of power is one of the important things about a democracy. If he's to be investigated, it would be better to begin with impeachment rather than wait until he leaves office.

It sure would!

Notice how that hasn't happened?

In fairness, I don't know the reason why not. They've had plenty of time for it.
Logged
...but is it art?

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2008, 11:32:12 PM »

Because the Congressional Democrats have no fucking spines.
Logged

James Edward Smith

  • CIS male, Albeist Scumbag
  • Tested
  • Karma: 11
  • Posts: 2087
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2008, 11:37:24 PM »

Yeah, I was about to repost here to reclarify my position to Thad, but Rico just did it for me. Your past examples of Presidents being impeached or what have you are all cases where he did something completely unexpected, out of "no where". In those cases, the American people clearly did not elect that president knowing what later happened would happen. That's a case where impeachment is very useful and very necessary to remove someone from office after they do something that shows them to be clearly unfit to serve as leader and no longer desired in that position by the American people.

This is different. Bush did not start a war over nothing to line the pockets of his puppet masters out of no where in his second term. He did it, pretty much clear and in the open during his first term, and then retards gave him a pat on the back and voted him back into office. Impeachment at this point seems unnecessary and fruitless to me.

I dunno though, I mean. I can see your point too. I would like something done to solidify in the history books or at least some sort of record somewhere that he is a complete retard and somehow, for some reason I will never understand, your country lost what little sense it ever had that night in 2000 and never gained it back until 8 fucking years later.
Logged
Talk? Talk is for lovers, Merlin. I need a sword to be king.

Bongo Bill

  • Dinosaurcerer
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65431
  • Posts: 5244
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2008, 11:58:45 PM »

God damn this is a thread filled with spite. Reasonable people can disagree on matters of policy, and history is neither required nor likely to condemn as "retards" all those who didn't see eye-to-eye with a particular viewpoint.
Logged
...but is it art?

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2008, 12:06:49 AM »

Yeah, I was about to repost here to reclarify my position to Thad, but Rico just did it for me. Your past examples of Presidents being impeached or what have you are all cases where he did something completely unexpected, out of "no where". In those cases, the American people clearly did not elect that president knowing what later happened would happen. That's a case where impeachment is very useful and very necessary to remove someone from office after they do something that shows them to be clearly unfit to serve as leader and no longer desired in that position by the American people.

Bullshit.

The Watergate break-in occurred during Nixon's reelection campaign.  The Plumbers were arrested then, and McCord was ID'ed as a former CIA man and tied to the campaign.  There was as much evidence linking Nixon to Watergate in 1972 as there was linking Bush to torture in 2004, and that's without even getting into My Lai, Cambodia, the Enemies List, Kent State, the Southern Strategy, and every other embarrassment to the Nixon Administration that happened before he won reelection in a landslide.

And I emphasize "landslide" -- Nixon won a second term by a FAR fucking bigger margin than Bush.

(And if you want to bring the Johnson and Clinton impeachments into it -- I'll grant I brought them up and then quickly removed that part of my post, precisely because both were politically-motivated nonsense and therefore not really comparable to, say, investigating a President for supporting torture -- Clinton's marital infidelities were well-known back when he was Governor of Arkansas, and Johnson was impeached for something he did before being elected to a second term.  Not that either of these actually helps my case, as they actually WERE political maneuvering flouting the will of the voters -- but torture is pretty fucking different from a blowjob.)

This is different. Bush did not start a war over nothing to line the pockets of his puppet masters out of no where in his second term. He did it, pretty much clear and in the open during his first term, and then retards gave him a pat on the back and voted him back into office.

I'm having trouble following how that's different from Cambodia.

I dunno though, I mean. I can see your point too. I would like something done to solidify in the history books or at least some sort of record somewhere that he is a complete retard and somehow, for some reason I will never understand, your country lost what little sense it ever had that night in 2000 and never gained it back until 8 fucking years later.

Bush beat Kerry (and "beat" Gore) using dirty tricks.

So yeah, my comparison to Nixon is clearly totally off-base.
Logged

James Edward Smith

  • CIS male, Albeist Scumbag
  • Tested
  • Karma: 11
  • Posts: 2087
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #37 on: November 14, 2008, 08:39:30 AM »

Oh, I guess it isn't different then.

I always thought that Watergate happened during Nixon's second term.

Oh well, I've never had an American history class. I have watched Glory though.

Man, you guys retardedly re-elect a lot of assholes.
Logged
Talk? Talk is for lovers, Merlin. I need a sword to be king.

François

  • Huh.
  • Tested
  • Karma: 83
  • Posts: 3313
    • View Profile
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2008, 09:21:45 AM »

Man, you guys retardedly re-elect a lot of assholes.

I... I don't think we have a lot of lessons to teach in that regard.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Bush in Jail
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2008, 11:04:48 AM »

Argh.  Browser crashed, didn't save my post when I restarted it.

Anyway:

I always thought that Watergate happened during Nixon's second term.

The actual crime occurred during his reelection campaign, and was investigated through the first two years of his second term, first by Woodward and Bernstein and then by the Senate.  W&B, with help from Mark Felt/Deep Throat, uncovered the evidence that tied Nixon directly to it, but there was circumstantial evidence from the beginning; that's what gave them the breadcrumbs to follow.

Man, you guys retardedly re-elect a lot of assholes.

You think we're bad at a NATIONAL level, give a look at Arizona sometime.  Just in the past two decades we've had two governors step down amid corruption charges, and Sheriff Joe is a whole story unto himself.  Congressman Rick Renzi of District 1 has some 30 indictments against him, and will be gone in January.

Speaking nationally, there's still about an even shot that when the count's finished Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens will be reelected as Alaska's Senator despite his recent 7 felony convictions, and between New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Congressman William Jefferson, Louisiana seems to care more about party affiliation than competence or...what's the word I'm looking for in Jefferson's case?  Opposite of "corruption".

...And I think that's a big part of the crux here: at least 50% of the electorate will vote on party lines regardless of WHO the hell is running.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4