Deliberate violation of the Geneva Conventions on prisoners grounds for impeachment?

[ShibbOleth]

@Munch

No, but I will contradict you on the assertion that Bush would drop out of the race. At this point, an impeached Bush would stand a better chance with the electorate than any other Republican.

I disagree. I think they’d just call in Jeb early from the bullpen where he’s been warming up for 2008. They’re practically interchangeable although Jeb may be a bit more extreme than his counterpart, at least in terms of religious zealotry. He also doesn’t come across to me as much as a doofus as his big brother, but maybe it’s just the treatment he gets in the local press.

[ElvisL1ves]

And if they did, ol’ Jeb would immediately be beset with harder questions than he’s faced yet about his role in the 2000 election. And that’s if the delegates who’d do the picking at the convention even thought they’d have a chance with the name “Bush” back on the ballot.

No, if Dubya were to become convinced that he’s dooming his party as well as himself this year (which won’t happen - he won’t listen to anyone who’d tell him that, not even Poppy), then there would have to be a clean break with, well, everything about this administration, and everyone involved with it. If it were to come to that point, the Republicans’ best chance at salvaging this year would have to be with McCain.

[Sevastopol]

THE COMMON PLAN TO VIOLATE THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS

Under the United States Constitution, the President (and members of the Executive branch) is bound to faithfully execute the law, which includes treaty law and customary international law. See, e.g., U.S. Const., art. II, Sec. 3; Paust, International Law as Law of the United States 169-73 (2ed. 2003), and cases and materials cited. Thus, the Plan to violate the Geneva Conventions is not only illegal but is also unconstitutional.

Readers will recall that war crimes can range from “all measures of intimidation” through “inhumane treatment” and “cruel” treatment to “torture” and that the United States has several statutory bases for prosecution of both military and civilian persons who are reasonably accused of dereliction of duty, complicity, perpetration of various crimes, and direct involvement in common plans to violate the Geneva Conventions and other international criminal proscriptions.

No need to precede criminal prosecution with impeachment. We’re waiting Mr Ashcroft.

[BobLibDem]

@Evil Captor

This is such a losing philosophy that so many Dems embrace. They keep limiting themselves to what they will and will not do to achieve their political will, whereas it’s obvioius that the Republican leadership has discarded most caveats along those lines – they will do virtually anything to win, while Dems keep insisting on bringing knives to gunfights. Then the Dems are so amazed that they lose.

Yeah, but we lose with honor. I still believe Bush is more deserving of impeachment than Clinton, but neither man’s follies crossed what I would consider the theshold of an impeachable offense.

[BrainGlutton]

@sevastopol

No need to precede criminal prosecution with impeachment. We’re waiting Mr Ashcroft.

Does this apply to the president too? Can a sitting president be prosecuted for a crime, without first being impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate? And, if he is convicted, can he be forced to take his punishment, e.g., go to prison, before his term expires? And, if that happen, would he be under any legal or constitutional obligation to resign his office? Or could he run the government from a prison cell? Interesting thought.

(I remember Clinton was convicted of perjury, but I can’t recall if that was before or after his term expired.)

[ElvisL1ves]

@BrainGlutton

Does this apply to the president too? Can a sitting president be prosecuted for a crime, without first being impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate?

Sure. There’s no connection.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Impeachment/removal is a strictly political procedure that borrows legal trappings; it is not a process of the law itself.

And, if he is convicted, can he be forced to take his punishment, e.g., go to prison, before his term expires?

Apparently not, but it isn’t clear, according the the Blowjob Era commentary anyway.

[qutoe]And, if that happen, would he be under any legal or constitutional obligation to resign his office?
[/quote]
That’s what the impeachment process is for - to remove federal officers whose continued presence in office presents such a grave danger to the government that the next election cannot be waited for. For judges, with lifetime tenure, it’s the *only * way.

I remember Clinton was convicted of perjury, but I can’t recall if that was before or after his term expired.

No, never charged.

[BrainGlutton]

@ElvisL1ves

No, never charged.

Well, he was convicted of something, wasn’t he? Or maybe I’m remembering his suspension from the practice of law.

[foolsguinea]

@BobLibDem

I dislike Bush as much as anyone, and I think if you shaved his head you’d see three 6s on it. But impeachment is a truly drastic step that should be used only under the most dire circumstances. I believe both instances where it has been used in the past were unwarranted. If we’re going to impeach a president every time he does something we don’t like, then let’s just have a prime minister and parliament. If the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors are sufficiently great, then the people in their wisdom will rectify the situation in November. Besides, the mere fact that Cheney would get to the White House if this happens should be enough to scare the bejeezus out of anyone contemplating impeaching Bush.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think being the AntiChrist is more than enough grounds for impeachment. :eek:

More to the point:

1. The fundamental problem of governance in this country is that we don’t use impeachment enough. The legislative branch is supposed to impeach officeholders for failing to do the voted-upon will of the legislature, which will, not judicial precedent, nor executive policy, is supposed to be the law of the land. Instead, we act like the executive & judiciary are autonomous, & the legislators don’t impeach when they have a duty to do so—because their party politics outstrips their commitment to the rule of law.
2. We’re not talking about a President who does something a few Congressmen don’t like. We’re talking about a President who has willfully violated the Geneva Convention, which is the law of the land (&,incidentally, a law held in common by all Western civilized societies.) That’s not just a misdemeanor or policy difference, that’s a colossally high crime!
3. I would love a Constitutional rewrite to give us parliamentary democracy, but short of that happening, at least Congressmen need to remember that they swore an oath to serve the Constitution. (And if they think that’s trumped by party loyalty, or have some other, “more important.” oath to a party, they aren’t fit to serve.)

[BrainGlutton]

@foolsguinea

Call me old-fashioned, but I think being the AntiChrist is more than enough grounds for impeachment. :eek:

More to the point:

1. The legislative branch is supposed to impeach officeholders for failing to do the voted-upon will of the legislature, which will, not judicial precedent, nor executive policy, is supposed to be the law of the land.

I don’t think this falls within the definition, whatever it might be, of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” What you’re describing with these words – “failing to do the voted-upon will of the legislature” – is broad enough to cover not only matters of law, but matters of policy – regarding which there is almost always a legitimate turf battle between the legislative and executive branches. As it stands, we do not have a parliamentary system, and the executive branch has an independent electoral mandate (well, it does during most administrations) and a very broad latitude, supported by the Constitution and by established usages, in setting national policy independently of legislative action.