Obama would ask his AG to Investigate Bush Administration Crimes

"Bill Clinton passed on prosecuting the Bush 1 Administration"

What, for Iran-Contra?
There already had been an investigation into that, which did a pretty good job.
Discredited by Reagan fans, of course. The important part was that it really showed their hypocrisy with the "don't negotiate with terrorists" lines.
Hooray for Reagan! He really showed them. (See Beruit)
Got gas prices down by selling AWACS to the Saudis.

This administration's crimes are much greater.

Yoo is probably looking at a free trip to the Netherlands, and I can already here Rush and Savage and Coulter all emitting high pitched keening screeches about loss of sovereignty and implications about black helicopters. Some other stuff will out, but that rumbling sound you hear is the new Lockheed Marting SHR-1 power shredder crushing the pavement of Pennsylvania Avenue under its treads. Next stop - the Old Executive Office Building, where secure, lead-lined construction disposal tubes will be set out from a 4th floor window, the better to dump the remaining paper trails and detritius from the Office of the Vice President into the awaiting maws of the world's most powerful mobile shredder/incinerator. We can't leave any evidence about how Monsanto and Halliburton conspired to drop illegally untested Happy Fun Balls over Iraq, can we?

most of the iran contra people were pardoned before even going to trial by reagan. WHo didn't seem to recall he gave his permission to sll arms to the iranians.
Most of the info on what happened was lost by havign the cases thrown out due to pardons.
And a good bit of those criminals who broke the greatest laws int eh land, the very foundation of our country, now work in the bush admin. heck poindexter was in charge of telling congress what the total information awareness group as doing. YOU KNOW THE SAME Guy that was busted for willfully lying to congress.
Freaken aamazing that these guys can still work in our gov. Sure I get pardons. But if a child molester was pardoned, would you put him back with children? WELL WTF ARE TEHSE CRIMINALS BACK IN GOV?

Oh my goodness...a candidate wants people to support him? Stop the presses.

Red meat red meat, pay back pay back....

the man was asked a direct (and potentially very damaging to answer) question and he gave a pretty direct answer; "yes." With the caveat that he didn't want it to become a partisan issue.

this is somehow displeasing to you? Hmmmm, good to know that you don't want your politicians being direct and bold.

Reviewing information is not quite the same thing as investigating.

Call me an Obamaphile from now until he's out of the White House :)

It's rather unfortunate people resort to that type of name-calling, but it's pretty predictable :)

and investigating ciminality is nothing to do with "Red meat" and "pay back"
unless you think laws should be allowed to be broken.

and still not so sure where you are getting your defs of investigating comsen.. but you review the info on hand when you investigate. But what ever, I will be sure to remind you when you complain that obama has bds as he reveiws the info ont he crimiinal activities done by the bush administartion, that obama doesn't have bds, all he is doing is reviewing.

So he's gonna "review the information", tabulate all the crimes we already know about plus the bottom of the iceberg we don't yet know about and MAYBE followup?

Look, ComSen, in any case you can calm down, these Bush bastards will all be pardoned before he leaves office anyway.

Obama seems to say he will likely prosecute anyone Bush forgot to pardon or didn't know to pardon. It's almost worth voting for Obama on that basis alone.

...these Bush bastards will all be pardoned before he leaves office anyway.

You can't be pardoned if you haven't been convicted of anything. I don't think they'll be convicted of anything before Obama takes office.

This is as risky a statement for Obama to make as it is exciting to ponder. If these bastards were jailed I could once again be proud of my country.

Let me just make a predication: the next Prez will have her/his/its hands so full, so tied-up due to the messes made by the Bush administration, that he/she/it will not be allowed to make investigations a priority.

At the very least, that will be the excuse.

Wasn't Pelosi going to impeach Bush? Whatever happened with that?

Kucinich got behind the idea, and the others were too scared to be seen on the same page as Dennis the Menace. That, and they were afraid that it would galvanize the then moribund conservative base of the Republican party.

Kucinich got behind the idea, and the others were too scared to be seen on the same page as Dennis the Menace. That, and they were afraid that it would galvanize the then moribund conservative base of the Republican party

My opinion is that it sounded good and helped get people elected. Once they were elected there was no reason to actually follow through on anything they said they would do.

no peloci said impeachment was off the table
many in congress are complcant, dems too, so it's not just bush.
AS a junoir snetaor he doesn't have much ability to set the agenda.
I guess you could see if he cosigned any impeachment legislation.
But asking what he has done as a senator assumes he has power to do much.

But asking what he has done as a senator assumes he has power to do much.

He had the power to speak out and publicly call for an impeachment vote. I've never seen politicians keep quiet when they wanted to get something accomplished.

so has he done anythign to deserve your lack of confidence?
do you have more confidence in clinton?
what has she done or said about investigating bush?
How about mccain? does he have an air of competance arround him?
mister I cant tell a sunni from a shiite?

Our of the 3 choises we still have, who seems the most competant and why?

so has he done anythign to deserve your lack of confidence?

He has called on the country to stick to important issues in his cute little speech on racism, then carried on with the same superficial bull@!$%# he was decrying.

He has touted himself as a defender of civil rights after voting to renew the PATRIOT Act.

He claims to oppose the American occupation in Iraq, but continuously elects to fund it.

He describes himself as defender of the people, then supports CAFA and other pro-corporation, anti-consumer concepts.

do you have more confidence in clinton?

Absolutely not.

How about mccain?

Ditto.

Our of the 3 choises we still have, who seems the most competant and why?

1) The three people you've listed are so similar, they are closer to being one choice than they are to being three.

2) We have more options than just voting for one of these three horrible people.

"He has called on the country to stick to important issues in his cute little speech on racism, then carried on with the same superficial bull@!$%# he was decrying."

I don't see it that way. I wonder why you think that? (The question is rhetorical)

Rhetorical or not, I'm going to answer:

Obama is still not explaining anywhere why getting corporations more involved in health care is a good idea. He's not explaining why a country that spends more than half the world's military budget could possibly need to expand its military. He's still spouting the same bull@!$%# rhetoric coming from everyone else, playing to the sheep that think things like whether or not he wears a flag lapel actually make a single @!$%#ing difference in any meaningful way. But because the question was rhetorical, I'm sure you already knew this answer.

Welcome to America, where all men are equal under the eye's of the law.

Would be nice if that was more than a statement, but in reality there is very very little truth in that. ASk lydsey lohan how long she did for a coke bust. NOt there is very little equality under the law but we are working on it. ATleast they normalised cocaine/crack sentencing.

I was being....ironic. But in the sense that if Obama did go after Bush and he was convicted and did any time with Chenye and Rove...that would reset the BS justice meter to zero.

And Sandy.

AG focus on much more important issues,

there are more important issues than war crimes and treason? Please, do tell...

there are more important issues than war crimes and treason? Please, do tell...

that would be alleged war crimes and treason...

mainly alleged by the small lunatic fringe I mentioned.

Even Hillary Clinton understands it would be a waste of time.

oh,

"lunatic fringe," i missed that part before.

well, I for one am quite convinced by your exceedingly compelling (not to mention strkingly original) name calling.

"...call off the dogs, guys, it turns out we're lunatics for paying attention to memos coming from the White House!"

We prosecuted waterboarding and torture as a war crime in WWII

KillFile,

Yeah, now that you mention it, I remember all the jailtime FDR did for that.

he would much rather go back to the days where you start investigating a realestate deala nd end up prossecuting for a stain on a blue dress. Those are high crimes huh.
yeah he talks about the 80% of us as fringe while he is in the 19% of bush supporters.
LOL
Jazzman what the heck did fdr have to do with water baording. WE PROCESSCUTED A JAPANESE INTEROGATOR for war criems for water boarding.
It wasn't FDR WHO WAS BUSTED.
WE WERE NOT THE WATER BOARDERS.
IT WAS THE ENEMY THAT WAS CONVICTED. GET IT? WE convicted a guy who did a bunch of jail time for what bush said was ok to do.
geez man.. read a bit of history. You totally lost this argument.

it's also aldged by the world court, it was alledged int eh memos by yoo that what they were doing was against international law. But it was allegded by yoo that a president can decide what law is. WHICH IS NOT alledged by the constitution.
get it?

Jazzman what the heck did fdr have to do with water baording. WE PROCESSCUTED A JAPANESE INTEROGATOR for war criems for water boarding.
It wasn't FDR WHO WAS BUSTED.

JoulesBeef

I guess you should ask KillFile. that question

He's the one who related it to prosecuting Bush and members of his administration.

My point was, it has absolutely no relationship to trying to prosecute a President of the United States.

yeah he talks about the 80% of us as fringe while he is in the 19% of bush supporters.

You need a reality check if you truly believe 80% of Americans would support any prosecution of Bush.

That's ridiculous.

Because we're above the law right? A war crime is a war crime Jazzman and if Obama seeks to investigate and turns up evidence of war crimes you just might be surprised.

At that point we're talking about a former President of the United States.

I see you post stuff like this and I wonder if I misjudged you.

I once believed you couldn't be as naive and out of touch with reality as it makes you seem, and that you just do it to feed your clueless NV groupies to keep your NV rating up.

I thought, old KillFile has a nice scam going here.

Now I don't know, I think you may actually believe this nonsense.

So, what specifically do you disagree with, Jazz? Do you think that presidents who ignore Congress's subpoenas and oversight should just walk away free, no matter what they might have done?

Or are you afraid to learn what the administration you supported did in your name on their watch?

It sure feels like the latter.

Jazz -

The difference is that in Bush's case, they've admitted to authorizing waterboarding (suffocation). Heck, they brag about it!

Bush says he got an opinion that it's legal. Mr. President, you are the decider, remember!?!
You are the one who accepted that opinion as valid. The responsibility is yours.

The difference is that in Bush's case, they've admitted to authorizing waterboarding (suffocation). Heck, they brag about it!

Cletus,

In the specific case of waterboarding murderous terrorists who kill men women and children without distinction, I support waterboarding.

In a convential war, I probably would not.

Well, you should encourage us to 'renegotiate' the Geneva Convention then. It's in clear violation. We are signatories to that treaty. I'm sure you're familiar with what the U.S. Constitution says about treaties.

No matter how they try to legal weasel word it.

I also never thought I'd see the day when a president could run secret prisons, torture, spy on citizens without court oversight, and pervert the justice system into a political cudgel.

Killfile,

I know what you mean, I never thought I'd see the day when America would suffer an unprovoked attack by Islamic maniacs, destroying one of our greatest national landmarks, and killing over 3000 people.

As for Bush,

You mean a President taking action to:

1) Keep terrorists from being released by leftist judges, and lawyers, by imprisoning them outside their jurisdiction

2) Extract information from murderers, using non life threatening methods, which has led to information that saved American lives

It's all based on how you view things.

Well, you should encourage us to 'renegotiate' the Geneva Convention then. It's in clear violation.

Cletus,

The Geneva Convention doesn't pertain to enemy combatants who wear no uniform for any country, and fight for no country.

How many US military personnel who have been captured by these maniacs on the battlefield are currently alive in a prisoner of war camp somewhere?

Absolutely none. They've murdered every member of the US military (and just about everyone else) who has fallen into their hands, in most cases using heinous methods, including video-taped beheading.

Or are you afraid to learn what the administration you supported did in your name on their watch?

TJG,
I know what they did, and I don't have a problem with it.
But I also don't agree with the false characterization of what they did, as described by yourself and others commenting here.

Jazz-
"The Geneva Convention doesn't pertain to enemy combatants who wear no uniform for any country, and fight for no country."

That's not the way I read it. "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

Sounds pretty darn clear to my simplistic mind.

The other alternative, and the correct one, is to treat Al Queda as a criminal gang. One with a very high priority for efforts.

in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

Cletus,

There's been no formal declaration of war by the US against al queada. There can be none because they are not a state, and have no true country. This is not a conflict i in the sense that framers and signatories of the Geneva Convention conceived it.

Although for some very strange reason, those of the radical left have some strange uncontrollable urge to embrace and cuddle them.

I think its a lot like those people in WVa who can't overcome the urge to cuddle rattlesnakes.

Good luck in The Hague.

Amen Fred.

I have a hard time respecting anybody who doesn't welcome oversight.

I'd welcome oversight however I have no expectations that an investigation once launched would actually stoop to finding out the truth rather than pushing the politically useful conclusion the launchers want it for. The real effect of an investigation is to push the knife a little deeper maybe give it a twist between the artificially created 'sides' in American politics. Obama appears smart enough to know that but is between a rock and a hard place with irrational supporters demanding he seppuku the country for them.

As a Republican, I'd actually welcome such an investigation.

As a taxpayer, I wouldn't.

Be $million wasted by some special prosecutor, and in the end Bush is not going to jail.

woudlnt you want bush vinidated?
I guess you didn't support the clinton stain investigations?
can you please state that for the record.. that the clinton investigatioons were a waste of money?
How is oversight, concidering it is only millions, worth less than say a rain forest simulator in ohio? or a bridge that will service 50 people.. seems like a cheap price to pay to settle it one way or another? NO?
how about just settling the rule of law?? oviosuly we have two compeltely different and incompatible intertpertatiosn of exactly what presidentcial power is. SUrely even you jazzman with your lvoe for bush cant say there is something wrong with setttlign this question of power.
would you feel betetr if the next president we have when another 9-11 happens, should know his power and not wonder if he may be busted for listenign to idiots like yoo?

Be $million wasted by some special prosecutor,

If there is wrongdoing and illegal activity, then I would think that letting future politicians in high places who might be thinking they are above the law know that they are not would be worth every dime. If there's no wrongdoing, and nothing illegal going on, then it would have turned out to be a collosal waste of money, yes. So, if the new administration is going to come after them, they better be sure they are right or there might not be a second term, just on that issue alone.

woudlnt you want bush vinidated?

JoulesBeef

Bush will be vindicated when Iraq becomes a stable, self sufficient working democracy, if it doesn't he won't be.

I have a hard time respecting anybody who doesn't welcome oversight.

greck,

Oversight, of the Executive branch is the responsibility of the Legislative (Congress) Branch, not a special prosecutor.

so, Jazman,

what then if the executive branch refuses to comply with said oversight?

Yeah, I agree greck. I'm not about to give someone a pass on illegal activity just because they happen to belong to the same party as I do. And if the executive branch refuses to comply, then there are laws in place to make sure it happens.

so, Jazman,

what then if the executive branch refuses to comply with said oversight?

The President has no choice in complying if the Congress has the votes to make him.

So your major problem is that not enough Americans, agree with your viewpoint, to have elected a Congress to make Bush comply.

He would have been impeached long ago if the votes were there to do it.

"He would have been impeached long ago if the votes were there to do it."

Indeed.

Hey Jazz, you still haven't admitted that you think that Ken Starr's investigation of Clinton was wrong. Double standard much?

Regarding Starr- Since when is a mutually consented to affair a criminal matter?

He would have been impeached long ago if the votes were there to do it.

so you agree he's committed impeachable offenses and the republicans in congress are refusing to do what's right.

I'm glad we've found some common ground.

so your major problem is that a special investigator would be used instead of congress.

The majority votes (just one) are not enough on the Democratic side to impeach.

This Bull@!$%# that we have a Congress run by the Democrats has been accepted only because the Republicans keep repeating it like a propaganda line from WWII, if it were just out stupidity it is worse.
If Republicans ever gave a damn about the Constitution enough to read it they would know
You need a 2/3rds majority in both House and Senate to impeach, and the Dems have neither.

so you agree he's committed impeachable offenses and the republicans in congress are refusing to do what's right.

Yeah, because the Democrats in Congress have done so much to hold him accountable.

By "hold him accountable," I of course mean vote to approve all the legislation Bush has used to commit his crimes and vote to fund an illegal occupation.

Yeah, because the Democrats in Congress have done so much to hold him accountable.

By "hold him accountable," I of course mean vote to approve all the legislation Bush has used to commit his crimes and vote to fund an illegal occupation.

I hear ya,

I think nobody wants to be the first to pull their finger out of the dike, cause you just know that person is gonna be tarred and feathered despite his/her important place in history.

By "hold him accountable," I of course mean vote to approve all the legislation Bush has used to commit his crimes and vote to fund an illegal occupation.

Again see my post. #11.16 The Dems don't have the votes to override a presidential veto... Dems were not in charge from the beginning and don't have enough power to change what has gone before! If they did, the troops would be home and Bush and his lackeys would be in Leavenworth were they belong, instead of the White House. Bush never vetoed even one Bill until the Dems took the seat. Not One! Not one Bill ever got to Bush to sign that did not include everything he wanted before that....
All the blame is on the Republicans.

Again see my post. #11.16 The Dems don't have the votes to override a presidential veto... Dems were not in charge from the beginning and don't have enough power to change what has gone before! If they did, the troops would be home and Bush and his lackeys would be in Leavenworth were they belong, instead of the White House. Bush never vetoed even one Bill until the Dems took the seat. Not One! Not one Bill ever got to Bush to sign that did not include everything he wanted before that....
All the blame is on the Republicans.

Bush can't veto a spending bill the Democrats refuse to pass. If they stop funding it, the US troops can't remain there. It's that simple.

And of course, on top of that you have the fact that none of the Democratic leadership is in fact calling for impeachment. But yeah, they want to hold Bush accountable.

Oh, and one MORE thing:

The Dems don't have the votes to override a presidential veto... Dems were not in charge from the beginning and don't have enough power to change what has gone before!

The Democrats approved this from the very beginning, before the invasion ever happened. Nice try, though.

Bush can't veto a spending bill the Democrats refuse to pass.

Why waste valuable time passing a Bill that they are sure will be Vetoed, for brownie points? Even if they Get enough votes to pass it, which is unlikely due to the Republicans blocking everything. More Sophistry now... more circle jerk logic...I'm waiting...

I think you're missing his point. If the democrats would simply vote "no" on Iraq funding bills then the President couldn't stop it because there would be no bill.

For all of the blustering on Iraq by the democrats they continually vote to fund the war. Even if they felt the vote would pass they could still vote no to show their disapproval.

I think you're missing his point. If the democrats would simply vote "no" on Iraq funding bills then the President couldn't stop it because there would be no bill.

No, I get it, you don't though, it's a con game, the old bait a switch trick! Who would be benefiting from that "No" vote? Not the Troops who we all support, who need supplies to eat and defend themselves in the middle of a civil war. Not the Democrats who would be accused of not supporting the troops because the republicans can't separate Supporting troops with not Supporting the war! It's a political brick wall. Your damned if you don't and damned if you do. So they go with supporting the troops and wait till they have real power to change things. That is what this article is really about. Waiting. So Just you wait.
Bush knows this is coming. He has done everything he legally can do (this remains to be seen) to protect himself from prosecution after he leaves office. Why? Because he's innocent? I have an oil well in my back yard that I want to sell you in Chicago if you buy that, load of crap.

Yes, this a problem we have with unpopular wars.
Might have to wait 4 years the way it is.
If Congress is supposed to declare wars, shouldn't that imply the authority to call a war off?

so you agree he's committed impeachable offenses and the republicans in congress are refusing to do what's right.

No I don't.

I'm just saying if you Bush-haters had the votes to impeach him, it would have been done long ago.

The majority of Americans don't hold the leftist extremist viewpoint such as yours, which would have led to the election of an impeachment majority Congress.

Americans rejected the leftist whine for impeachmnet in the 2006 election.

Yes, this a problem we have with unpopular wars. Might have to wait 4 years the way it is.
If Congress is supposed to declare wars, shouldn't that imply the authority to call a war off?

With all this Straw...We could have a Hay ride. A Formal Declaration of War was never made, by Congress, remember. This is a war on Terror! Not Iraq. We won that already, it's over remember, Bush even said so. Mission Accomplished. You can't declare a war on a term, a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept.

I'm just saying if you Bush-haters had the votes to impeach him, it would have been done long ago.

on what grounds?

We should have a way to vote no confidence of President, with the same requirements, 2/3rds of both houses.
He stays until the elections to be held ASAP.
In today's times, thing change so fast, we need a strong President.
(to throw that strong president argument back around)

on what grounds?

Exactly.

You have none.

We should have a way to vote no confidence of President, with the same requirements, 2/3rds of both houses.

Cletus.

Please, let's not start playing around with the Constitution

I has an amendment clause in it, it's there for a reason.

Why waste valuable time passing a Bill that they are sure will be Vetoed, for brownie points? Even if they Get enough votes to pass it, which is unlikely due to the Republicans blocking everything. More Sophistry now... more circle jerk logic...I'm waiting...

What the hell are you talking about? Did you read my comment?

All they need to do is, in fact, not pass a bill at all. Without Democratic support, no Iraq spending bill can pass either house of Congress.

Exactly.

You have none.

yes, your application of the "Bugs Bunny" debate tactic is quite cute, but it was you that submitted that if Dems had the votes there would have been impeachment by now, which means that there would have been grounds for such.

You could just admit that you misspoke, ya know.

clinton did it too!!!
lol and he was impeahed
but sure lets investigate
NO one should be above the law.

but do you have any evidence that something illegal happened?
heck we have bush denyign we torture,and then busting some soldiers caught toturing(of have we forgoten ms england?). Called them a bucnh of bad apples, repeated that we don't torture> Then it is found out we accidentally tortured a couple innocent people. One we abandoned oin a foreign country on top of a mountian. And then the memos come out and then it's "yeah we may do those things but they are legal and needed"
so we have evidence against bush, do you have something more than a tax statement?

Nancy's not in the military chain of command, now is she?

No, just third in line to succession to be President.

Go for it....

glad you supporty this IV.. can I get your signature on a petition to ivestigate this?
belvie it or not it doesn't change my opionion if nancy knew, heck al gore could have signed off on it.. heck every presidnet in us history, and every pope, and all the mother tereasas could have signed off on it, my own mother and father could have signed offf on it. Obama could have signed off on it. Doesn't make it right.
SO lets clear this black stain off our good rep.
SO I can count on you to support this IV? No matter whom it takes down.
SO as you state "Lets go for it"
I see get the criminals out of office no matter the party.
I say lets go further, lets have another abscam..w hat ya say IV, you with me?
can you aregue a good reason not to get crimianls and corruption out of gov??
lets get them all dems, republicains, greens independants,balck white, indian, I don't care.. lets agree to go after them ALLL.

I completely agree with you in principle. However, the political reality is..it will not happen. How far do you think an investigation the House will go when the current speaker was aware of the waterboarding?

Who or what would conduct the investigation? Who would decide who or what would conduct the investigation?

Does that include Carter?

Does that include Carter?

yes, and if convicted he should be sentenced to 10,000 hours of community service.

-he's just about done with that, btw.

Nobody is above the law and as my young son goes to jail for minor nonsense, Scooter Libby spends not one minute in Jail.

I try and worry about the things I can control. As I've been told many times, life isn't fair.

I agree.... And my boy is learning..... Hard way works as well as the easy way.....

And my boy is learning.....

You must be doing your job. I hope everything turns out okay for him.

Yeah then there were war crimes indictments against clinton.....he was tied up

Clinton? War crimes? Maybe on your planet....

Have a good read

Republicans were just jealous of Clinton.....

Don't people get tired or ripping up President Bush?

Austinite1,

No,

KillFile seems to makes a living on it.

Feeds the NV frenzy.

The Congressional authorization was for war against those who attacked us on 9.11. Iraq had nothing to do with it.

With all the treasonous acts, the Constitution will remain inoperative for the foreseeable future. Obama is a constitutional lawyer and I don't think he will stand for that.

Bush has turned this country into an international renegade, removed habeus corpus, deprived people of free speech, declared the Fourth amendment inoperative, violated the Geneva Convention, lied us into a murderous war, claimed the right to detain and torture anyone, anytime, indefinitely, without due process or contact with the outside world, believes he can order military operations on US soil and has a secret memo declaring it legal, and is data mining and wiretapping every bit of information he can about the people of this country. If you think an effort to investigate all of this will look cheap, or that it will stand for fear of the "press" then you don't believe the American people care about civil liberties. Isn't that somewhat elitist?

The Congressional authorization was for war against those who attacked us on 9.11. Iraq had nothing to do with it.

History is not your subject.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, a law passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted 2001-09-18), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

KillFile seems to makes a living on it.

A living? Really? On his Newsvine earnings from articles or seeds that "rip up President Bush"?

Bush should have gone the way of Lincoln

That's way out of line.

You can disagree with the man's politics, think him monsterous for his policies, and wish to see him removed from office and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law--fine.

But you're talking about the assassination--the murder--of a head of state. That's utterly deplorable.

I was making a historical reference, I personally do not wish him assassinated, just removed from power.

"That's utterly deplorable."

Drastic situations sometimes call for drastic action.

Actually, McCain might be the better choice for this.
When I read between the lines of what McCain is saying on this,
I think Bush will not be let off the hook by a McCain Presidency.
And having a GOPer appoint the investigators could add tremendous credibility to it.

Actually, McCain might be the better choice for this.

That "might" needs a bit of bold to go with the Italic.

Your point (which I agree with) encouraged me to google, I found one I hadn't seen:
A Top Pentagon Lawyer Faces a Senate Grilling On Torture

It's a role that the Senate Armed Services Committee, overseen by Sen. Carl Levin and its ranking Republican member, Sen. John McCain, has been quietly but aggressively scrutinizing during a two-year investigation. Two sources familiar with the probe, who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters, say the panel's investigators have grilled a number of key players—including Special Forces operatives and FBI agents—who were never previously questioned. The panel notified the Pentagon in early February that it wanted to question Haynes.

This is what I was originally looking for:

...
It would be far better, I believe, for the Administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law – that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability....

- 14 Feb 2008