Question:
Is Obama an accessory by not agreeing to prosecute the Bush administrations war crimes?
Open your eyes
2009-01-28 08:34:19 UTC
http://www.prisonplanet.com/turley-obama-accessory-to-war-crimes-if-no-prosecution.html
Eighteen answers:
David_the_Great
2009-01-28 08:40:51 UTC
No. The Bush Administrations did not commit any war crimes.
anonymous
2009-01-28 08:46:31 UTC
No, he's not. Most people in Washington realize that prosecuting Bush (like Clinton's impeachment hearings) would burn up too much federal money and value time at a point in history when we have bigger problems to solve and spend the money on. In the end, Bush would just get pardoned and/or the evidence presented would cause too many problems with our international dealings to air our dirty laundry in public this soon after he left office.
as.erwin
2009-01-28 08:43:08 UTC
No, he is proving to be smarter than he looks considering there is no evidence whatsoever of a war crime! Reid and Pelosi have been looking for the past 2 years without a single result... without a single valid charge.



No less than 4 books BY PEOPLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION have been published, NONE OF THEM had any hard evidence of ANYTHING illegal...



So, what do YOU have to add to this? What "crime" would you like to charge him with?



And, since Obama went on Arabic TV and APOLOGIZED to the very people that flew planes into the World Trade Center, KILLING more than 3,000 American citizens, is HE NOW AN ACCESSORY to that act of terrorism?
anonymous
2016-10-30 01:07:26 UTC
I bear in mind him alluding to pursuing criminal investigations into Bush officers, yet not Bush. He did not promise it, he used slick communicate that for a lib sycophant crammed with years of rage, delusions approximately Bush, and hating the war, appeared like a "promise" loopy libs crammed with hate try this. They hear what they choose to take heed to noticeably whilst it rolls out O's sphincter
justgoodfolk
2009-01-28 08:58:20 UTC
Of course. International law is very clear on this but it's also common sense.



Considerable efforts are being made in various quarters to cover up the record of US torture and prevent the prosecution of military and Central Intelligence Agency torturers and those higher up who ordered them to carry out their crimes.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are reportedly holding up approval of Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, until he promises not to prosecute any former Bush administration officials for their part in approving torture.

Not that the incoming Obama regime needs much encouragement along those lines. The new administration has made a series of cosmetic changes that will in no serious way alter the brutal course of US policy in regard to the "war on terror" and the treatment of detainees. The eventual closing down of the Guantánamo internment camp and illegal CIA prisons, as well as the official requirement that CIA and military personnel follow the Army Field Manual's prohibitions on torture, will resolve nothing.

The ideological and political framework—with its accompanying network of lies and justifications—for wars of aggression and attacks on democratic rights remains intact.

Obama's aim is to repair some of the damage done to America's standing as a result of the Bush administration's policy of abuse and torture carried out in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo and a gulag of secret detention sites, without changing the essence of US foreign policy, the drive toward global hegemony, and the illegal and violent methods employed in the implementation of that policy.

The new president has made clear his administration has no plans to prosecute the perpetrators, whose transgressions, in any case, were carried out with the full knowledge and approval of leading Democrats in Congress. "I don't believe anybody is above the law," Obama told the media. "On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards." This is, for all intents and purposes, a preemptive pardon for torturers.

It is critical, however, that just such an investigation into US torture and associated illegal practices be carried out, and the guilty parties, up to the highest levels of the Defense and State departments and the White House, be prosecuted.

To pretend, as supporters of Obama and the liberal media are now doing, that these criminal policies can be halted without an exhaustive examination of how they were ordered and carried out—and by whom—is a grotesque fraud.

This is a political and moral issue. The aim is not to exact revenge—although those responsible should pay a heavy legal price—but to expose and discredit the policies that have led to war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and threaten even greater crimes and disasters in the future. The American military-intelligence apparatus, the greatest instrument of terror and violence on earth, needs to be uprooted and dismantled. A first step is the careful recording and public exposure of its many crimes.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/pers-j28.shtml
iraqisax
2009-01-28 08:40:34 UTC
The short answer is yes, just as the Bush Regime were accessories to the crimes of the Clinton Crime Family. There is a word for this phenomenon. It is Conspiracy.
nick H
2009-01-28 08:40:17 UTC
Wow! War crimes...You need a copy of the articles of the Geneva Convention. They're posted all over the internet. If you really want to understand the issue (which there is none), you should read them.
Miss Priss
2009-01-28 09:26:00 UTC
I wonder how many times people are going to ask this question? Once a day? Twice a day? For how long?
Porkforeternity
2009-01-28 08:44:17 UTC
Obama would have to prosecute himself that makes no sense. Try rephrasing your question.

Yes all politicians need prosecuted all of them.
anonymous
2009-01-28 08:38:42 UTC
No more so than Bush not prosecuting Clinton on his Mark Rich pardon.
Ah Ha #26
2009-01-28 08:43:12 UTC
What war crimes? And if you think prison planet is reliable you need to get your head out of the sand.
anonymous
2009-01-28 08:43:23 UTC
Perhaps you need to open your eyes - what about the Pakistan lauch - how does that fit with your little scenario.
anonymous
2009-01-28 08:39:37 UTC
He's too worried about prosecution for his own mounting list of war crimes.
RayHere
2009-01-28 08:41:52 UTC
We never gong to allow you to put Mr bush on trail
anonymous
2009-01-28 08:39:16 UTC
What are these war crimes of which you speak?
HodgPodg
2009-01-28 08:41:34 UTC
There were no crimes committed!!!
anonymous
2009-01-28 08:39:01 UTC
He could be. Let's hope it does not come to that.
anonymous
2009-01-28 08:40:31 UTC
take look

http://israeldemocracy.blogspot.com/


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...