Obama and Failure to Account

[camobch0]

So over 2 years have passed, and I think it is safe to say that no Bush-era official will be charged with any type of crime despite countless documented violations of the law. After reading Glenn Greenwald's new book, I am very pissed off and surprised at how much is still being hidden. So I wanted to pose a couple of questions for all of you: A. Do you think that Bush administration officials should still be actively pursued and prosecuted for their crimes? B. Do you think Obama should be prosecuted for his own failure to carry out his constitutional duty as President to "take Care the the Laws be faithfully executed" (Article 2,Section 3 US Constitution)?

Numerous memos from Bush's staff have clearly shown that techniques defined under the UN Convention Against Torture, including waterboarding, a technique that has clearly be defined by Bush Administration officials as a technique that simulates drowning, and provides a "threat of imminent death," something that the Convention Against Torture (a treaty, which has the FULL force of any other United States law) clearly prohibits "Restricting acts of torture to the following list:..(3) the threat of imminent death." Along with many other ordered acts that are clearly defined as torture in US law or US Treaties, it is already apparent and obvious that members of the Bush Administration whom ordered or allowed these torture techniques to go on broke the law.

In another case, Bush Administration officials are recorded as having ordered the warrantless and blatantly illegal wiretapping of millions of US citizens. After judiciary hearings into the matter, it was determined illegal, yet only part of the illegal wiretapping was stopped. To this day, the Obama Administration STILL allows warrantless wiretapping. A little timeline.

This is just a microscopic portion of the PROVEN illegal acts of the Bush Administration. The vast majority of all information regarding what the Bush Administration did is going to be filed away as "Top Secret" until long after all participants are dead. Considering the very small amount of Top Secret documents that have been leaked showing these highly illegal and treasonous acts, consider what kind of horrible things they've got locked away.

But it was not just the Bush Administration doing illegal things, but also the Obama Administration. Documents leaked by Wikileaks have shown that Obama's Administration threatened Spain with loss of all assistance and aid if they continued to call on Obama to begin arresting and sending to court Bush officials. Under not only the Geneva Conventions, but the Convention Against Torture (A US treaty) for all signing nations, "all acts of torture are offenses under it's[the signatory nation's] criminal law", and it is mandatory for each signing country to investigate allegations of torture and "submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution" under Article 7. As torture is defined, it is crystal clear through documents released by the Obama administration that the Bush Administration ordered torture.

Yet, Obama and his staff have -at every possible opportunity- said that as a nation "we need to look forward and not back." However, this is not a dictatorship. This is a democracy, and we have laws in place for a reason. The very thought that looking to the future is a valid argument essentially means that no lawbreakers should EVER be prosecuted, as the point of laws is to punish an action that has been committed in the past. The very fact that this can even be considered legal is simply mind-boggling. If I run a red light, it probably wouldn't run over with the cop very well if I said "Hey man, that was in the past. You don't have to give me a ticket because I learned from my mistake and it won't happen again!" When the president says this however, there seems to be no problem whatsoever with letting clearcut criminals off the hook with no retribution whatsoever.

Obviously, the points I raised barely even touch the surface of the amount of crimes that have been committed in both Administrations. What do you all think of this in regard to my questions?

[RydiaLockheart]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember shortly after his inauguration Obama said he didn't want the DOJ to do any investigations because we needed to move this country forward, not keep looking backward. He said something to that effect and I remember hearing it on the news (and the resounding complaints after that). So I never expected anything.

[camobch0]

At 12/7/11 08:36 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember shortly after his inauguration Obama said he didn't want the DOJ to do any investigations because we needed to move this country forward, not keep looking backward. He said something to that effect and I remember hearing it on the news (and the resounding complaints after that). So I never expected anything.

Yes, but throughout his entire campaign, he made one of his central tenants the "restoration of law and order." He frequently spouted off his complete devotion to the rule of law. Right after he was elected however, he made a 180 and immediately began covering the previous administration's ass.

[Iron-Hampster]

not the first time a president committed heinous crimes and got away with it.

I believe Jefferson committed genocide, they gave him a memorial and a happy ring to his name.

To expect the president to be punished for his crimes without public intervention is ridiculously naive. Everything Bush did was in the best interests of his lobbyists, why would Obama be any different? Despotism is a helpful tool for the big businesses that have their money where the law is. Unless people change their voting habits the surveillance is only going to become MORE pervasive. You can bet there will be more bending of the constitution and bill of rights as well. Then again there is not a lot stopping people from buying out the whole electoral process either.

[Warforger]

At 12/7/11 10:24 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: I believe Jefferson committed genocide, they gave him a memorial and a happy ring to his name.

Um, I don't think that was Jefferson, he actually admired the Native Americans and tried to work out peaceful solutions with them and felt that they can be assimilated into American society calling them "noble savages", you're probably thinking of Jackson whose more close to that, while essentially being the Chuck Norris of his day (when a guy with two pistols came to assasinated him, the guy fired one bullet when the other jammed I think and Jackson almost killed him with his cane, this was when he was an old man too) not giving a fuck and doing what he felt the American people asked of him, like the Indian removal act which is at least a crime against humanity which we call the "Trail of Tears". Jackson had a history of that anyway, considering when Indians were attacking from Florida he just invaded Florida on his own against orders and took down every fort there and the Spanish after that just gave America the colony.

[Korriken]

At 12/7/11 08:27 PM, camobch0 wrote: So over 2 years have passed, and I think it is safe to say that no Bush-era official will be charged with any type of crime despite countless documented violations of the law.

I'll put it simple. no administration is going to go after the previous one because it'll open the door for the next administration to come after them.

those who chant "bush should be imprisoned for torture" fail to realize the fact that is Obama pursued that, the next administration would pursue charges on Obama. Anwar al-Awlaki was born in america, making him a US citizen. ordering a targeted killing of your own citizens, I'm sure there's something they can pin him with.

[Thecrazyman]

The only thing I know that points out to why President Obama isn't doing what he should be doing is simple.

A Leader needs to work for one's Followers accommodated by the needs of the Followers themselves, not necessarily by the wants but by the needs is most important. Why I know this? That's because I learned from various leaders in the past, the good things they did and the bad things they did and if I was President of the United States myself, I simply work for the American people accommodated by their needs and get the job done.

[Ericho]

He threatened Spain? I had no idea. I guess it doesn't really helped that I'm not that interested in Wikileaks. I guess I should spend more time on less professional wikis like Uncyclopedia and TVTropes. What's weird is how I really wouldn't give him any main criticism except his support in the Libyan war. Of course, I can't blame him that much for it now, because he successfully defeated Gaddaffi.

[Korriken]

At 12/8/11 12:27 PM, Ericho wrote: He threatened Spain? I had no idea. I guess it doesn't really helped that I'm not that interested in Wikileaks. I guess I should spend more time on less professional wikis like Uncyclopedia and TVTropes. What's weird is how I really wouldn't give him any main criticism except his support in the Libyan war. Of course, I can't blame him that much for it now, because he successfully defeated Gaddaffi.

the Libyan people defeated gaddafi with the help of NATO funding by the American and European tax payers.

[Ericho]

At 12/7/11 11:18 PM, Warforger wrote: you're probably thinking of Jackson

I know! Everytime I hear a President being criticized it's Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon because they killed people, but Jackson was easily the worst of them all! He contributed more to a genocide than any President in history. Christopher Hitchens should write a book on him.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/9/11 01:59 PM, Ericho wrote: I know! Everytime I hear a President being criticized it's Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon because they killed people, but Jackson was easily the worst of them all! He contributed more to a genocide than any President in history. Christopher Hitchens should write a book on him.

Well, when it comes to pure numbers, Truman, Nixon, and FDR vie for the top of this category, but I have to agree that in when it comes to the pure hatred and despicability with regard to the killings Jackson's campaigns against native americans takes the top spot hands down.

[Ericho]

At 12/9/11 02:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote: but I have to agree that in when it comes to the pure hatred and despicability with regard to the killings Jackson's campaigns against native americans takes the top spot hands down.

I think that it's just the worst percentage wise. I read that there were roughly 4 million Native Americans living in America at the time of Columbus and now there are only 250,000, so that would mean a 96.975% percentage loss although that could be attributed more to Columbus and other settlers. I don't know how many there were when the country was founded.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/10/11 11:29 AM, Ericho wrote: I think that it's just the worst percentage wise. I read that there were roughly 4 million Native Americans living in America at the time of Columbus and now there are only 250,000, so that would mean a 96.975% percentage loss although that could be attributed more to Columbus and other settlers. I don't know how many there were when the country was founded.

You're way off here...

The Navajo Nation, alone, has over 300,000 members. Per the US Census (and my fuzzy math, adobe isn't reading pdfs for me right now...) the US has approximately 2.5 million native Americans right now.

While this is a significant drop, not that much of the drop is directly attributable to Jackson. A great deal of it is due to assimilation and interbreeding. At work, at least 25% of the families believe they have some ICWA connection, though most people's native heritage is extremely small.

[adrshepard]

At 12/7/11 10:24 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Unless people change their voting habits the surveillance is only going to become MORE pervasive. You can bet there will be more bending of the constitution and bill of rights as well. Then again there is not a lot stopping people from buying out the whole electoral process either.

Funny how it's always someone else whose votes are bought by lobbyists. Everyone I've met said they voted for such and such because of his stance on certain issues.

camobch0, you are a egotist pussy. Egotist, because you're so deluded as to think that the government cares enough about your boring existence to listen to your phone calls. Pussy, because you're unwilling to do bad things to bad people, even if saves the lives of good people, due to your loyalty to some foreign statute over your own ability to judge.