Dear President Obama: Why aren't Bush and Cheney on trial?

[Cyrano]

I know that anyone sitting in the Oval Office is driven virtually 100% by politics. And I also know that if you pursued the prosecution of Bush/Cheney, you would be charged with "playing politics." But do you believe that the charge of "playing politics" should let war criminals off the hook?

Most of us who voted for you fully expected you to be forced to make "hard choices." I know that the economy is at the top of your list. And I also know that Iraq and Afghanistan have been dumped into your lap and they are intractable problems.

Nonetheless, I also know that, at the very least, three war criminals, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, are walking around free and seem to have no fear of being prosecuted.

You took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It seems to me that by permitting these three who disgraced our country and shredded our Constitution to walk around free and unmolested, you are violating your oath of office.

One of them, Cheney, will continue to spew fear, propaganda and hatred over cable TV, and for the most part go unchallenged. Are you really prepared to let this abomination go on for the next four or eight years? Do you really intend to let this man continue to spit in the face of America?

Many of us resent being labeled "left wing lunatics." And we wonder why you are not moving to start to cleanse the stain and stench left upon our country by these self-confessed criminals who have soiled our national reputation, our honor and our Constitution.

Perhaps you can explain to me, and millions like me who voted for you, why you have not ordered the Department of Justice to investigate these men, bring charges where justified, and prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

I don't expect an answer here on DU. But at some point, you owe us all an explanation.

Respectfully,

An American Citizen

[Echo In Light]

1. Institutional Collusion AKA "Looking Ahead," or, "Moving Forward!"

And other euphemistic, Orwellian terminologies.

[el_bryanto]

2. Has Obama ever given any evidence that he would charge Bush, Cheney with war crimes?

I haven't seen any.

Bryant

[Echo In Light]

3. Of course not. It's a given that such a thing would NEVER happen

[Cyrano]

8. Someone's going to have to explain to me why "such a thing would NEVER happen."

If torture, lying us into war, spying on American citizens, and the virtually countless crimes that were committed by BushCo are not enough to hold a president and his fellow thugs to account, what would be?

It's way past time that American presidents stopped getting free passes for any and all crimes they commit.

Nixon quit, but should have spent the rest of his miserable life in jail.

Johnson decided not to run again, but given the phony "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution that cost almost 59,000 American lives, he should have been thrown into a dungeon.

Where the hell does it say that an American president can get away with anything?
The only reason they have is because we the people didn't demand justice.

But Bush and Cheney more than crossed the line. Torture puts them in the same league as any other murderous dictator past or present.

Their hands are covered in blood. And if we let it go, for whatever reason, it will happen again. And again. And again.

It's time to say "enough" and haul them into a court of law.

And yes, there are many obstacles. But there are some things we just can't let go.

[Mike Daniels]

12. Only in the figment of some imaginations

People who think the majority of voters had "send Bush/Cheney to jail or the Hague" anywhere within their top 30 reasons for voting for Obama live in a fantasy world.

Hell, the UN can't even enforce its desire to bring the president of Sudan to trial. Do they honestly think the US is going to willingly hand over one of its former leaders?

[Zywiec]

4. The Executive Branch can order the Judicial Branch to do something? n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. In this, yes

The principle duty of the Executive Branch is to execute the law. This is why federal Attorneys General are appointed by and part of the Executive Branch rather than the Judicial. Under our system of law, the judiciary cannot instigate proceedings; that is the responsibility of the executive. If the Executive Branch does not file suit against Bush et al., there is nothing the Judicial Branch can do.

[Zywiec]

9. Thanks for the info. n/t

[Cyrano]

6. The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch

[librechik]

7. We haven't made him do it yet.

keep screaming--maybe we should start marching, also!

[stklurker]

10. Bingo!

Because, quite frankly, the public as a whole doesn't seem to be behind this.. and I think Obama realizes he cannot risk the political capital at the point to pursue it.. my opinion.. Also, the further it gets from his presidency, the less likely it is to happen

[monmouth]

11. His plate has been pretty full right now. Want to give him another week or so maybe???..n/t

[Cyrano]

13. Thousands of people work in the executive branch.

Obama doesn't need to personally investigate. He needs only to allow the Department of Justice to do its job.

He will take political heat for it, but right now, the Republican Party has zero credibility. If they want to attack him for investigating the Bush administration, let them. After all, it's not like Bush is being accused of getting a blow job or anything like that.