Why should he be above being punished? The jerk has acted as though he was above the law, and I guess he's right.

If they want to investigate, than fine, go ahead. but lets not make it a witch hunt to pin the nations troubles onto one man and then burn him at the stake. The way most bush haters talk, its like they have information the rest of the world doesnt have, in regards to his "guilt" and usually the arguement is dead where it stands.

I guess I'm ok with the investigation as long as they don't go overboard and spend a bunch of taxpayer dollars on this. I think we just need to move forward, and if the Hague wants to go after the Bush Adminstration for war crimes let them do it.

My thoughts exactely CG - Witch Hunt.

Just depends on what's most important to you; the rule of law or the selective application of it.

IMO President Obama is going to do what he thinks is best for the country and that is not to endorse an investigation.

If I were President I would endorse an investigation and publish the findings. If there is any guilt I think that will be punishment enough and if there is innocence that will finally settle the nagging questions. Finally, history will better be able to judge the last administration with yet another layer of truth revealed.

This is just going to be a waste. They can call it what they want, but it WILL turn into a witch hunt. And then what? Let's say they are found guilty, ok and that improves our situation now how? And how does it make the people who were working, suffering, and sacrificing for that cause feel? How exactly does this bring us together? I suppose we could pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves how evolved we are but at the end of the day it makes no difference whatsoever.

Say they aren't found guilty, say they are innocent, the true haters won't believe it and we'll just have same conspiracy theories, so what does that do? Some people will think they are guilty no matter what (probably because of what CG said, they seem to think they know things the world doesnt) so now we've just wasted a bunch of time and money for nothing.

What about the information (of which there is much I'm sure) that cannot be brought to light for security purposes? We're still in the middle of this thing, or have we forgotten?

"...if there is innocence that will finally settle the nagging questions"

Do you really believe the witch hunters will be staisfied with that? The mob has been screaming for 5 years that Bush has committed war crimes, without any sort of evidence to support that. I find it amazing that even the UN doesn't think any wrongdoing has been comitted by the Bush administration, but that isn't good enough.

I think that this would be a really great thing to do. Given that people would not go to prison for their actions, it would fall short of a witch hunt. In any case, we aren't look for communists or "unpatriotic" people -- things which are subjectively determined. We would be looking for flagrant abuses of our laws regarding civil liberties and human rights. Both of these can be identified rather objectively.

I think we need to do this for ourselves to restore trust and confidence in our government and our system.

Carrie, I see what you mean regarding security sensitive information. I think there are ways around that. Plus, it is precisely because we are fighting against people who go against our ideals and constitution that we need to reassure ourselves that we still do stand for what our country was founded on.

Even if people didn't go to jail, it would allow us to clear the air. Just like in South Africa with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

People should be allowed to protest the actions of the government - and they did. Bush faced criticism and protests left and right, Democrats took over in Washington, especially with Obama's election instead of another Republican. All can be seen as forms of protest to the former administration.
I agree with the Pres; the investigation Leahy is proposing just seems unnecessary and petty at this point.
At the same time, I think Bush's administration should be analyzed and chronicled. It had lots of ups and downs and it would be beneficial to everyone to be able to see the causality of events and his actions taken.

Carrie Sue, you bring up a good point.

This is going to be a waste of taxpayer money. It's going to be a waste of time. This country has more important things to worry about right now than hanging the Bush administration. The US and the world have already made their judgements about Bush. I really don't see a 'fair-minded' trial coming out of it. What about moving forward?

If I thought an investigation would really settle everyone's minds, I'd say go for it. But if the administration is shown to be more innocent than guilty, I don't think the people who are so adamantly against Bush will be satisfied and will scream "cover up". So what would be the point?

"Do you really believe the witch hunters will be staisfied with that?"

The official witch hunters, yes because they'll have no choice but to honor the findings. As for the citizensugars, townhallers and huffington posters I don't give $#!+ if they keep harping because gossip doesn't matter.

Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were involved in situations far less serious to the country and its standing in the world than war crimes. If the Bush Administration is let off the hook for violating international and national laws, what about the next president, who might decide that having domestic dissidents killed is the best way to protect the country? If he blankets himself in national security claims, will we ignore the Constitution for him as well?

The country has a process for determining whether a President has violated his oath of office - there is no need to create a special process, or create special exceptions, for George Bush. If he believed that what he did was right, he won't mind testifying to that fact.

What costs all the time and money IMO is all the b*tching by officials (citizens b*tch away) if they would just do their jobs with out favortism that a lone would save us all a hell of a lot of time and money.

" If the Bush Administration is let off the hook for violating international and national laws, what about the next president, who might decide that having domestic dissidents killed is the best way to protect the country?"

Since these are claims, and not facts, we aren't letting him "off the hook".

"Since these are claims, and not facts, we aren't letting him "off the hook"."

Maybe we're just throwing the hooks away all together. If that's what the majority wants then that's what we'll have to live with. All I know is this country needs to have a so called (come to Jesus) when it comes to accountability because IMO all we're doing is setting a bad example. There is nothing wrong with holding people accountable for their actions but for some reason that's what we're trying to convince ourselves.

we were having this chat last night during the address, and i think that at this point, there's really nothing to gain by doing this. i guess it's fine to investigate the past authoritative group, but to invest more tax dollars behind the process is counter productive, and i think that we don't have anything to gain from doing it.

I don't see anything wrong with holding people accountable, but we've been screaming this for 2-4 years now, and if there was any sort of proof of any wrongdoing, Bush would be behind bars already. Get over it, he didn't do anything worng, or it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. How about we talk about the stimulus bill and focus on the future.

" Since these are claims, and not facts, we aren't letting him "off the hook"."

What happens when someone "claims" that another broke the law? We have a trial to collect the "facts," so that we don't let criminals off the hook. And so as to protect and give meaning to our laws! We need some accountability. Would we tell someone whose car was stolen to just "look forward" and forget about who or what stole it?

Did we go after clinton and nixon for claims or facts?

Why investigate it if they don't plan on punishing him? All that money spent for what? Your peace of mind!!! Waste of money, waste of time. Just like the Clinton impeachment trials, for what? Just so you can feel warm and fuzzy inside? Lame

Clinton and Nixon were investigated while in office, If you wanted to burn Bush at the stake, you should have done it while he was in office. And sexual harassment is a very,very serious crime. It affects people all across the US. And having the highest office in the US get away with it would have sent a bad message.

"What happens when someone "claims" that another broke the law? We have a trial to collect the "facts," so that we don't let criminals off the hook."

Actually, we investigate first. If there is enough facts to warrant a trial, then, and only then do we go to a trial.

You do collect all the information to get an indictment first, then have a trial.

This went from claims to admissions some time ago - so the information already is at hand.

And in the last few weeks of their administration, both George Bush and Dick Cheney acknowledged authorizing torture techniques for which the United States has prosecuted and punished people.

We didn't HAVE to prosecute Bush while he was still in office - the statute of limitations for war crimes doesn't run out. Torture is a far more serious crime than sexual harassment.

"This went from claims to admissions some time ago - so the information already is at hand."

That depends on what side of the aisle you are sitting.

No Dave it actually doesn't - both made very clear statements that they authorized certain actions.

The only thing that could be partisan about it now is whether the U.S. wants to allow war crimes in order for some of its citizens to feel safe.

What you heard, and what they said can be very different and distinct things.

That's pretty much the same in any criminal trial and in the history of war crimes, people have been convicted on far less.

Far less than what, Stephley? What exactly is it that you think he's done?

Both Bush and Cheney say they were told about and approved waterboarding of at least one detainee. That's admitting to a war crime. Both discussed it in taped interviews.

I think they should be investigated but as CG said, it shouldn't become the witch hunt. No one is above the law. I didn't like the warrant-less taping and the American people have the right to know what went on, and Cheney and his croonies needs to own up to his crimes, however IMO there are a lot more important things for us as a country to be worrying about right now and this shouldn't be our primary focus.

But that wasnt admitting to a war crime, in accordance to what a war crime is defined to be at that time.

on january 22nd of this year he made it illegal for the CIA to waterboard, it wasnt before according to interogation rules by the military handbook.

Very well said stephley. Do I sense a background in political science or law like myself?

If we don't investigate our own wrongdoings, we will lose all credibility on the international stage.

CG, you might want to double check your facts.

Thanks and I wish ECU, but I'm just a curious amateur.

CG, waterboarding was always considered to be crime that's deemed as torture and is and has has always been illegal.

“we’ve been screaming this for 2-4 years now,"

That is precisely my point (officials) just need to shut up and do it if they're going to do it. What better way to shut them up and show innocence or wrong doing once and for all. Believe it or not when officials scream about something for four years that's quite costly too, so I would say to them shut the hell up and do it or not.

No, ECU. Stephley is above college learnins. However, I wonder how extensive your background in International political science is if that's your opinion.

It's a little late now isn't it?

yes waterboarding is prohibited....by the us military. Now its prohibited as of jan 22nd by the CIA. double check your facts. i did.

hypno - It's not Bush's and Cheney's responsibility to show that they are innocent. It's the prosecuter's job to show that they are guilty. The fact that he hasn't brought any charges against the two is very telling.

You might want to triple check CG, your "facts" are problematic.

Sounds like a good compromise.