If convicted of torture and waging an aggressive war, Bush and Cheney should...

[Troubadour]

Let's hear your thoughts.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Treason is punishable by death, and I think its clear this is the case.
War crimes would most likely be an "additional charge".

I vote A: Death penalty.

[jafar00]

Extradition to serve their time in Abu Ghraib and receive the same treatment they condoned for the Iraqis imprisoned there. It's only fair they receive a dose of their own medicine.

[DANG]

Death would be like a reprieve.
They should be sent to Iraq.
Eyeballs first.

[Professor]

I think the Death Penalty is fair. It sends a clear message that we don't tolerate that sort of behavior.

[cronic]

Death would be like a reprieve.
They should be sent to Iraq.
Eyeballs first.

ya.. I like that idea..
but.. after we send them there.. we should then pull out all our troops.. Them 2 can handle it.... we can even give Cheney a gun.

He knows how to shoot..lol :madlaugh:

[Moorington]

Where's the 'Medal of Honor' option?

[DANG]

They have committed treason and murder on Americans, so they should serve long terms for that here, FIRST....among the general population of violent criminals and with no special privileges.

No white collar country club prisons. No protective custody and no extra stores to buy favors with. Their acquired wealth should be returned to tax payers (lower classes first) who have payed for cheney/bush voluntary war debt.

If anyone deserves the death penalty its these guys... But I am against capital punishment. The state should not set an example of death to settle accounts.
I am against aggressive war and state sponsored domestic murder.

[micfranklin]

Where's the 'Medal of Honor' option?

I thought only military service members get those.

Anyway off to federal prison those two would go, maybe even to Guantanamo Bay.

[Troubadour]

Treason is punishable by death, and I think its clear this is the case.


Treason is indeed clear in this case, and I would agree with your position if not for opposing capital punishment generally.


War crimes would most likely be an "additional charge".


Quite so. In fact, the comprehensive list of charges would be so long, there would probably have to be separate trials for blocs of charges just to make it practical. Hold the treason, torture, aggressive war, and conspiracy trial first, then move on to the extortion, racketeering, bribery, fraud, embezzlement, money laundering, and various other abstruse charges.

Extradition to serve their time in Abu Ghraib and receive the same treatment they condoned for the Iraqis imprisoned there. It's only fair they receive a dose of their own medicine.

Poetic justice isn't necessarily true justice, and I would like to see America regain its honor through a thoughtful and morally upright process. Just leaving them to the Iraqis, or "renditioning" them to be treated as they've treated others might sound appealing, but it wouldn't benefit American society one bit. The whole point is that America is better than these people and rejects everything they stand for - otherwise it would just be the vengeance of a fickle mob.

Death would be like a reprieve.
They should be sent to Iraq.
Eyeballs first.

There are a lot of fun punishment scenarios one could imagine, but ultimately they all center on the notion that it means something to make a perpetrator endure the experiences of the victim - i.e., that there's something educational in it. But these people are psychopaths - they cannot comprehend that other people exist and matter, so "eye for an eye" would simply turn them from being mindless animals who inflict suffering on others to being mindless animals who suffer, and it would be pathetic and pointless. I think their feelings, one way or another, are completely irrelevant - they've simply proven themselves unworthy of society and incapable of abiding by its rules, so they must be isolated from others in a controlled setting (i.e., prison) where they're incapable of hurting others.

Where's the 'Medal of Honor' option?

It's right here in my hand. Take a closer look...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/heartsandminds/ifyouaskme/images/15-05-03cartoon8.gif

[Easy90]

Let's hear your thoughts.

My thoughts are...you exhibit a perfect example of BDS. (Bush Derangement Syndrome.) It's kind of silly..but I suppose you find some comfort in stuff like this.

[Trish]

My thoughts are I think you've lost your mind. Bush hasn't been charged with a blessed thing much less been convicted of anything and here is a thread about how he should be punished. If this question was asked about any other American citizen the outcry against vigilante justice, violation of civil rights, debasement of the Constitution, etc. would reach the heavens. How very rich. So my thoughts are that you are no better than you assert Bush to be. Thank heavens there aren't any neck-tie parties anymore, because I think if there were you'd be one of the ringleaders. That's what I think.

[Troubadour]

My thoughts are I think you've lost your mind.

So you have no thoughts on the subject at hand, but still insist on commenting?


Bush hasn't been charged with a blessed thing


And that obviously needs to change, but that isn't the topic of this thread.


much less been convicted of anything


Hence the word "if" in the title. Obviously sentencing would be a moot point if there's an acquittal, as unlikely as that would be.


and here is a thread about how he should be punished.


And what's your position on that?


If this question was asked about any other American citizen the outcry against vigilante justice, violation of civil rights, debasement of the Constitution, etc. would reach the heavens.


Uh, no. A debate about the proper consequences in the hypothetical event of a conviction in a fair trial is not "vigilante justice," and your objections grow increasingly ridiculous. George W. Bush doesn't agree with the right to a trial, yet Americans do and are perfectly willing to grant him one; he doesn't recognize the human rights of the accused, yet we do and would observe them; he doesn't believe in evidence, or presumed innocence, or any of the standards of justice this country and all civilized countries hold dear, yet they would be just as cherished at his trial as they are in any other. But despite this, you can't stand the notion that we're even discussing the possibility that he could be held accountable for his actions. What's wrong with this picture? His minions are torturing people as we speak, with his full knowledge and under his direct orders, and you're disgusted with me for talking about how such crimes should be answered, IF convicted of them in a fair trial. I think, Trish, we have very different standards of citizenship.


How very rich. So my thoughts are that you are no better than you assert Bush to be. Thank heavens there aren't any neck-tie parties anymore, because I think if there were you'd be one of the ringleaders. That's what I think.

This attitude is truly warped and bizarre. You seem to feel Bush has rights that no one else on planet Earth even claims to have, all while he denies rights to others that no one other than he disputes. His people seem to believe he has a right to not even be accused until charged, not charged until convicted, and not convicted until investigations they refuse to allow have produced a videotaped confession - in other words, they're full of it, and are simply on his side against the Constitution.

[Buck Laser]

I don't believe in the death penalty, EVEN for Cheney or Bush. Speaking realistically, however, I think there is going to be some major legal fallout for the top leaders of this administration. The "I can't hear you" songs sung by the few defenders of Bush and his co-conspirators are just false bravado. When one considers how many top people in the Reagan administration of "blessed memory," the trials may not be as impressive, but they'll be there.

[Trish]

So you have no thoughts on the subject at hand, but still insist on commenting?



And that obviously needs to change, but that isn't the topic of this thread.



Hence the word "if" in the title. Obviously sentencing would be a moot point if there's an acquittal, as unlikely as that would be.



And what's your position on that?



Uh, no. A debate about the proper consequences in the hypothetical event of a conviction in a fair trial is not "vigilante justice," and your objections grow increasingly ridiculous. George W. Bush doesn't agree with the right to a trial, yet Americans do and are perfectly willing to grant him one; he doesn't recognize the human rights of the accused, yet we do and would observe them; he doesn't believe in evidence, or presumed innocence, or any of the standards of justice this country and all civilized countries hold dear, yet they would be just as cherished at his trial as they are in any other. But despite this, you can't stand the notion that we're even discussing the possibility that he could be held accountable for his actions. What's wrong with this picture? His minions are torturing people as we speak, with his full knowledge and under his direct orders, and you're disgusted with me for talking about how such crimes should be answered, IF convicted of them in a fair trial. I think, Trish, we have very different standards of citizenship.



This attitude is truly warped and bizarre. You seem to feel Bush has rights that no one else on planet Earth even claims to have, all while he denies rights to others that no one other than he disputes. His people seem to believe he has a right to not even be accused until charged, not charged until convicted, and not convicted until investigations they refuse to allow have produced a videotaped confession - in other words, they're full of it, and are simply on his side against the Constitution.


IF there were sufficient evidence to bring charges against Bush et al, I am quite sure those charges would already have been leveled. Considering the millions of dollars and countless days/weeks/months that were spent in investigating Clinton's alleged wrong-doings only to have to resort to filing perjury charges against him, I am quite sure that the Democrats in Congress would be more than happy to return the favor if there was anything they could remotely bring against Bush. That they haven't done so speaks pretty clearly that they haven't found anything they can use.

You frame all your heart-felt wishes with the all important catch-all "If." Here in Texas we have a saying about "If." If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass every time he jumped.

My idea of citizenship is that ALL Americans are entitled to the same due process and that simply SAYING an American, even if that American is a despised President, has committed a crime is not sufficient to play the "If" game to the extent you do here.

[Troubadour]

Your insanity is impressive.

What is it about the right that makes them incapable of following even the simplest rules of adult conduct?

My thoughts? I think it completely idiotic when Libbos go crazy about actual criminals getting the death penalty, scream about constitutional rights and killing terrorists, yet have no problem wishing death upon a person for throwing a stupid ass dog, and denying people who they detest, for political reasons, of their constitutional rights.


The seeder question regards what penalty should follow a conviction - do you have any thoughts on that, or are you content to shriek at invisible enemies?


Out of all the Liberal posts on this thread, not a single bit of evidence of treason or murder has been presented.


Have you ever given us any reason, in the entire history of your interactions with liberals on this board, to believe you would read and consider such evidence if presented? In my short experience responding to your posts, I would say you've given quite the opposite impression. Explain to me why anyone should go through even the small trouble of posting such evidence to someone they believe will not read it, or at best skim it in search of keywords they can denounce and attack while ignoring the rest? If you walk around an orange grove full of orange trees, baskets full of oranges, and a ground covered in oranges, and say you can't see any oranges anywhere, how many times can you expect others to carefully point at them before they simply throw one at you? I don't know if your attitude is what constitutes a sense of humor on the right, or if it actually is genuine, bone-fide delusional.


Behavior such as this is why no one wants the Libs to control the government.

Tsk tsk, have we already forgotten the subject? It's right there at the top of the screen, so feel free to refer back to it if you start to get a little lost on your journey to a point. Premise: Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are convicted of torture and waging an aggressive war. Question: What should be their sentence(s)? If the question is too complex, let me know and I'll provide a simplified version for Republican consumption.

When one considers how many top people in the Reagan administration of "blessed memory," the trials may not be as impressive, but they'll be there.

I would settle for Bush and Cheney behind bars, even if every single accomplice escaped justice. Out of 100 criminals, if 99 are sent away and the boss escapes, crime has been encouraged. The boss and others like him are all the more determined, and their new underlings all the more enamored with the idea of becoming a Teflon Don. But send away the boss, and the one beneath him doesn't want to fill his shoes - he wants to keep his head down and hide, and everyone beneath him does likewise, and the grip of law enforcement tightens. Send Bush and Cheney away, and a thousand Republicans just like them will think twice before aspiring to overthrow the Constitution.

[Pookie]

Well, I understand all this, but it's just not going to happen. No one has been formally charged with anything, so this is simply speculation.
Clinton was impeached for getting a blow job. Maybe if Bush and Cheney got one from a WH intern, things would be different.
Purrs,
Pookie

[NDNdancer]

I'm expecting other countries to charge Bush et al with war crimes. I don't think it'll happen while they're still in office. Once out of office, their immunity and "presidential privilege" factor decreases immensely.

I voted for extradition to Iraq. I know that won't happen, but I can dream!

[Troubadour]

Well, I understand all this, but it's just not going to happen.

Who's going to stop it from happening? The only way to stop it would be a pardon, so there are a couple of possibilities: Bush can pardon Cheney, then resign the day before leaving office so Cheney can pardon him, but that would sink the Republican Party like a direct torpedo hit and almost be worth it for Democrats. Or, if McCain wins (LMAO!), he can pardon the men who've spent the last decade humiliating him and assassinating his character, in exchange for a presidency he would already have won, but I wouldn't go putting any money on it.

This is what's probably going to happen: Barack Obama will take office avoiding any stridency, and when asked about this will simply say America needs to move on. Then, maybe a year later, there will be an investigation tangential to one of the big Bush scandals - for instance, some contractor involved in Abu Ghraib is investigated for defrauding the government. Slowly, the investigation will expand to cover the firm's relationships with the Pentagon and the White House, then similar cases will be looked at, yielding a torrential downpour of crimes and evidence, and it will just keep getting bigger. At some point, despite his wish to avoid division, President Obama will be compelled by the overwhelming evidence to authorize indictments against Bush, Cheney, and almost certainly others.


No one has been formally charged with anything, so this is simply speculation.
Clinton was impeached for getting a blow job. Maybe if Bush and Cheney got one from a WH intern, things would be different.
Purrs,
Pookie

Sex isn't their thing. They prefer blood.

[PatrickHenry]

IF there were sufficient evidence to bring charges against Bush et al, I am quite sure those charges would already have been leveled. Considering the millions of dollars and countless days/weeks/months that were spent in investigating Clinton's alleged wrong-doings only to have to resort to filing perjury charges against him, I am quite sure that the Democrats in Congress would be more than happy to return the favor if there was anything they could remotely bring against Bush. That they haven't done so speaks pretty clearly that they haven't found anything they can use....

Sufficient evidence is not enough. Would the Nazis have charged Mr Hitler?

Did Iraq charge Saddam before his overthrow?

I could name dozens of monsters whose regimes didn't prosecute them.

Your post shows a complete lack of understanding of political power...laughable really.

As to the original question...I would think a firing squad would be the quckest and most appropriate for Bush who considers himself a warrior. Just like Benedict Arnold would have received had he been apprehended.

For Cheney, the power behind the throne or defacto president if you will, I would see that he was administered a lethal dose of siezed heroin, to avoid the expense of a rifle bullet.

[Trish]

Sufficient evidence is not enough. Would the Nazis have charged Mr Hitler?

Did Iraq charge Saddam before his overthrow?

I could name dozens of monsters whose regimes didn't prosecute them.

Your post shows a complete lack of understanding of political power...laughable really.



PH -

I'm happy to have provided you with a bit of amusement. I fully admit that there are a great many things which pass my understanding. I do understand, however, that whatever "power" the current President enjoys will soon end. There were no such limits on Hitler or Hussein.

[preservanation]

If is for children.

What fantasies are you going to entertain when Bush fulfills his term and dutifully relinquishes office to his successor?
What then...Football player, King, Astronaut...?
Maybe a football playing King in space?

[Truth_and_Power]

returned to tax payers (lower classes first) who have payed for cheney/bush voluntary war debt.


I look forward to your demonstration of how the lower classes are paying for the war debt. I'm pretty sure it's the middle class that is paying for it.

[Truth_and_Power]

Sufficient evidence is not enough. Would the Nazis have charged Mr Hitler?

Did Iraq charge Saddam before his overthrow?

I could name dozens of monsters whose regimes didn't prosecute them.

Your post shows a complete lack of understanding of political power...laughable really.


I agree, it's a pipe dream. First of all, the executive branch would never allow any investigation access to the records that would be needed to build a case, and his closest associates would all go to jail for perjury before they would give him up. In fact, they would probably refuse to show up for trial in the first place, claiming 'executive priveledge'. And I think it's unlikely the secret service would give them up either. You would probably need a swat team just to arrest them and force them to trial, at which point your only conviction would be obstruction of justice and contempt of court.

[Troubadour]

You would probably need a swat team just to arrest them and force them to trial, at which point your only conviction would be obstruction of justice and contempt of court.

If indicted, Bush would call out the military. There is zero doubt of this.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Looks like all you in favor of trying Bush & Chenney need to vote for nader.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

[PatrickHenry]

I favor Barr over Nader.

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

I favor Barr over Nader.

But he's not running yet.? It would be great if he stepped up and
laid out his plan the fix the Mess that the RESP&DEMS have given
to America.
I would like to see Ron Paul get back in to the race too. Nader is
currently the only 3rd party candidate that totally out classes the
REPS&DEMS.

[micfranklin]

Paul or Nader >>>> McCain

[Troubadour]

I believe we can at this point draw a conclusion from our poll, and it is this: While there is no broad consensus among respondents, there is clearly strong consensus that whatever sentence is delivered to Bush and Cheney in the event of their conviction must be as severe as possible (or virtually so). A plurality supports life in prison without parole, while there is an equal division between the death penalty and extradition to Iraq.

[micfranklin]

They need to sit in prison with all the people they wrongly imprisoned without trial as well.

[Troubadour]

They need to sit in prison with all the people they wrongly imprisoned without trial as well.

Wrongly imprisoned people need to be tried or freed, and if freed, given appropriate restitution. They and their families would probably also need some kind of psychological help to deal with their experiences, which should be provided at the expense of the perpetrators. Hopefully Bush's and Cheney's assets would be frozen before a trial is undertaken, so that their amassed fortunes could be divided up among their immediate victims.