Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
Obama may bring criminal charges against Bush administration
Tuesday, 9 September 2008
enlargeDemocratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden has said that that he and running mate Barack Obama could pursue criminal charges against the Bush administration if elected to the White House this November.
Biden said that an Obama-led government would go through Bush administration data with “a fine-toothed comb” and pursue charges if necessary.
He told ABC News "If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation...they will be pursued, not out of vengeance, not out of retribution - out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no one, no attorney general, no president, no one is above the law."
Addressing a crowd in Deerfield Beach, Florida, Biden also highlighted the importance of the election in terms of the Supreme Court, noting that the next administration might appoint as many as three new justices.
"The single most important domestic decision that a president gets to make on his own or her own is the Supreme Court," he said.
Biden's comments chime with Obama's remarks in April. He vowed that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible "genuine crimes" and "really bad policies".
"If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."
However when asked about his comments today, Biden said he has no evidence that criminal charges would be warranted and no intention of pursuing action against the current president.
"What is true is the United States Congress is trying to preserve records on questions that relate to whether or not the law has been violated by anyone.
"But, you know, there's been an awful lot of unsavoury stuff that's gone on. And the mere fact ? that it occurred in a previous administration doesn't mean a subsequent Justice Department, if, in fact, there's evidence, shouldn't pursue them.
"But I have no evidence of any of that. No one's talking about pursuing President Bush criminally."
In June a former Democratic presidential contender, Dennis Kucinich, called for the impeachment of George W Bush claiming that the president set out to deceive the nation, and violated his oath of office with the Iraq war.
Democrats have also issued subpoenas to Bush administration aides as part of inquiries into the authorisation of alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay.
Three officials have been held in criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to respond to the subpoenas. However former chief political adviser Karl Rove, former counsel Harriet Miers and current chief of staff Josh Bolten have refused to appear.
- Text Size
CRIMINALS - yes. Indeed. Why is this even a question? Why does it come as such a surprise? MY God - how horrific do things need to be before the zombie population realizes what has taken place by these Criminals?
So - most do not know about the Trillions of dollars diverted from the American People - but then again most Americans really believe that some "bad guys" - in an Airplane - after taking flying lessons were able to topple several buildings in Lower Manhattan that fell at an amazing rate of speed and turned into fine dust.
These are Bad Men - and Criminals. Yes , Indeed. And they should be examined by the next administration regardless if it is popular or considered retribution or a witch hunt. The International court has it right - they are Criminals.
Posted by Scott - Portland,OR | 17.09.08, 19:09 GMT
Brian, on what grounds are they war criminals? Who has decided that the war was, in fact, illegal and who has decided that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld 'intentionally' killed innocent people? You would serve yourself better if you stopped masquerading your mere 'opinion' as fact. What happened to the premise of innocent until proven guilty? That legal principle that has people like you up in arms when it comes to the Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Posted by bhamilton | 14.09.08, 15:02 GMT
Barack Obama would be doing his campaign a great favor by doing any honorable thing to divert the nation's attention from Gov. Palin, and do it NOW, before the election.
One thing that comes to my mind is open support of efforts to impeach Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.
Posted by DBH | 12.09.08, 23:31 GMT
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest are all WAR CRIMINALS. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
Posted by Brian | 12.09.08, 19:50 GMT
There are enough problems for the new administration without wasting money on endless investigations into the current president's behaviour. Remember the Clinton investigations?
Posted by RMS | 10.09.08, 04:27 GMT
Centaur is obviously a Dutchman. Iraq was not 'totally innocent'. Don't you remember the invasion of Kuwait, scud attacks against Israel and the deaths of up to 2 million Iraqis at the hands of Saddam Hussein? Not to mention violation of ceasefire conditions and totally ignoring a succession of UN Resolutions over 12 years.
Regarding your 'irrefutable facts' - the UN and inernational community regarded Iraq 'officially' as a threat to the region and to world stability, therefore they sanctioned weapons inspections. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the Iraq war, getting your facts straight would add a little bit more weight to your obvious anti-American agenda. All very well to mould your opinions with comfortable hindsight. At the time, nothing was clear-cut.
Finally, how can someone be charged as a criminal when no court has officially established that the Iraq war was 'illegal'? Ignoring ceasefire resolutions could justify a resumption of hostilities.
Posted by bhamilton | 09.09.08, 19:09 GMT
No evidence of criminal activity? Are they having a laugh? What about the violation of a totally inncoent country's borders by thousands of troops, tanks and warplanes>
If that is not a criminal act I am a Dutchman!
Iraq never fired a missile at the USA. It never launched an air attack on the USA (those aircraft were piloted by SAUDIS!) and it certainly did NOT possess weapons of mass destruction.
Fact: Iraq is a totally treeless country. Fact: Iraq was overflown constantly by two airforces (the USAF and the RAF). Fact: Iraq is under constant satalitte surveillance.
Irrefutable fact: Iraq could not have moved anything bigger than a tank without those surveillance methods (listred above) picking it up. Ergo - no wea[pons of mass destruction existred.
In conclusion; the man who ordered this totally unprovoked attaqck must be a criminal and should be charged as such.
Posted by Centaur | 09.09.08, 15:08 GMT
I won't hold my breath. But if this did happen American's tattered reputation in the world might be restored.
Posted by Mav Rick | 09.09.08, 13:25 GMT