Wouldn't it be hypocritical NOT to investigate possible war crimes during the Bush Administration?

I think this.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney were war criminals and on numerous occasions acted against the best interests of the Constitution and the people of the United States.

However, having a set of trials to convict them of murder or treasonous activity or failing to uphold the constitution, CANNOT - at this time be seen as anything other than a political stunt or retribution on the part of one party against members of another party.

This could be cast in the same light as having impeached a president because he received oral sex from someone (not his wife) and failed to resign of his own accord.

In both cases, any executive acting as poorly as either of the two previous presidents would have been forced out or simply fired.

Regarding some of the particulars at CIA or wherever, to a very large extent , there may be a high degree of blame but this raises a legitimate concern.

1. What SHOULD the United States do to restore the rule of law regarding those detainees whom were detained illegally or those torturers who - really enjoy their job.

2. How do we prevent such a break-down - intentional or otherwise in the future.

The case against the executives is not actionable for the reasons I mentioned, to say nothing of the fact that over the years we have let other notable personages "get away" with far worse.

Allan Dulles, Richard Perle, McGeorge Bundy, Henry Kissinger , Curtis Le May, Harry Truman, Douglas Mc Arthur, or other such notables of US current and former political scene could all be rightfully considered war criminals.

Robert Mc Namara - goes so far as to point out that both he AND Curtis Le May would have been tried as war criminals - had the US lost the US/Japanese war during WW2.

This speaks MUCH more clearly for the need to do a couple of things to correct the system.

1. Make it crystal clear - perhaps at a constitutional level, what the rights of prisoners are, what is permissible and a general sense of what is not.

The real concern here is that you STILL end up with the problem that - at the time of 9/11 and afterwards, it WAS fairly clear that if the Geneva Conventions were not considered applicable, the Uniform Code of Military Justice WAS.

So it was not necessarily a scarcity of rules and laws that was our problem, what WAS the problem was lower level Justice department officials that very definitely found "creative" ways around the constitution.

CIA operatives, as such were operating under the presumption that their actions had sanction, that they were "allowed" to do this.

So at the end of the day , here the REAL problem certainly stems from the executive but also an abundance of lawyers, hard-line military officers, and political operatives who worked fairly aggressively against the constitution.

What should happen is that the government should take as much time as is necessary and build air-tight cases against those responsible. Present that evidence to the defendants and when it's very clear the case will be open and shut.

I'm actually quite a bit more animated about this subject, I personally feel that Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz's heads should be on pikes in front of the senate , as a reminder that some favors come with too high a price, but that's another subject.

But while it's easy enough to say John Yoo or David Addington did not act in the best interests of the Republic, it's worth noting that proceedings for disbarment are proceeding against Mr. Yoo as well as Mr. Addington.

http://www.dailycal.org/article/105632/professor_j...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Addington

Lastly, what do we - as a nation - DO - to prevent similar problems such as this from occurring.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=torturing+de...

I am actually MUCH less worried about the constitutional corruption (although it very much concerns me), rather than the total catastrophic situation around the Iraqi invasion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGPp-WhgEXE

The intentional lack of planning, the casual torture and sheer level of death and destruction visited upon the Iraqi people for reasons which to this day - stem more from the racist views and elitist impulses of those such as Mr's Perle , Wolfowitz and Feith rather than the national interest of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Pla... or the British equivalent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rockingham

Since these same impulses were those that drove the constitutional irregularities, what I question and would like to see addressed is the process in our political system whereby unaccountability and complete lack of transparency allow espionage, cronism and corruption at the very highest levels of military and political power within our republic.

An earlier generation of militarists could be faulted for being overly aggressive when act

Historically, in the event of war crimes being committed, the Commander (in this case the Commander-in Chief) can legally be held responsible, even if he has no direct involvement. This stems from the rather infamous (in my view) Yamashita Decision in war trials following WW II, in which the Japanese General Yamashita, even though he actually ordered the release of POW's held under his command, was convicted and hanged because of excesses by troops under his command against both civilians and POW's. He was not even present at the time, and certainly directly ordered nothing of the sort.

Under this precedent, an attempt was made, in the late 1960's, to try President Nixon for the My Lai massacre. Those involved were a group of Viet Nam Vets, many disabled as a result of wounds, who were understandably peeved over some of their own being tried while others above were not. Incidentally, their view was that while they understood the actions at My Lai, given the circumstances, they could not condone those actions. Ergo, they by no means supported what was done, but objected to the 'get out of gaol free' cards apparently held by some.

It has also been held under the UCMJ that a commanding officer is responsible for the actions of his troops, even if not present, since he/she should have taken all steps to ensure their proper behaviour. A couple of notable trials involved a 1st Cav Division officer in, I think , 1967, and also a Marine officer in 1966

It is distinctly possible, under the Yamashita precedent, to try Bush and co over proven war crimes - if substantial evidence arises of direct involvement or collusion, or possibly depraved indifference, charges are a very real possibility.

Hypocrisy is a US speciality - always quoting international law at others yet it, and its chief partner in crime Israel, refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. The reason is constant criminal behaviour by its governments going back a long time. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld were just more blatant and obvious.

If criminals were charged, there would be very few of the ruling plutocracy left free.

Yeah, that news came along with the news that the Obama administration's budget is going to be an extra 2 TRILLION more than projected.... how convenient.

Don't worry there is plenty blue kool-aid left for the Obama administration to use, in order to distract the Democrats, and others, away from current issues.

I, however, will remain focused on what matters now and in the future.

Yeah, I guess it would be historically hypocritical. That and the fact that they entered a war on false premises.

Sure they should investigate it. and they may as well investigate the crimes against humanity that this current administration has in mind for the citizens of the U.S.A. and prosecute every one involved. Sounds like a great plan to me.

Let's not forget everyone in Congress that approved it. If you go after Bush, you need to go after them (which includes The Hillary). Pelosi was briefed on it, but she did nothing until it was made public. Don't you think this is "hypocritical"?

Barack Obama is just another fraud and fake selling a lie - a front man for the same people who have controlled American politics for decades.

He's not going to prosecute them for war crimes. He's launching an "investigation" for brownie points.

Most of us aren't willing to face the reality of impermanence and death.

That's because we forget that our lives are transitory,

that we quarrel with each other, as if we are going to live for ever.

But, if we face the fact of death, our quarrels will come to an end.

We will then realize the folly of fighting when we ourselves are doomed to die. Excited by emotions our thought being clouded, we cannot see the truth about life.

When we see the truth, however, our thoughts become free of

emotions.

0bama and crew should also for killing innocent civilians with the continuing bombing of Pakistan, a soverign nation that we have NOT declared war on. An act of WAR NOT declared by Congress but he will get the pass on that since he is a Democrat, right?

So your BS is moot!