But before the punishment of Bush can be used as an example for future presidents we’d have to, you know, actually punish him.
The only way our political leadership is going to punish Bush for his missteps is if they think they’ll benefit from that punishment. And that requires a citizenry that demands punishment for Bush and his kind.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
But you all have put the cart before the horse. You cannot prove anything so don’t bother trying to prove anything. Even if you cold prove something you cannot convict him anyway so don’t bother having a trial.
Wish things worked like that for me.
[/QUOTE]
The legal standard for charging a person with a crime is “probable cause.” You must be able to show probable cause before a trial can begin.
What’s the legal standard for investigating a person?
None. It’s whatever the investigators want it to be, constrained by their bosses, their budget, and their public image.
You’ve gone from demanding that Bush be convicted to demanding that he be at least tried to to reluctantly accepting that he can’t be tried without more evidence, and now you’re screaming that there should be an investigation get get that evidence.
Since there is no legal threshold to the commencement of an investigation, we’ve finally reached a point where it can’t be shown definitively that your claims are unfounded.
However, because the people in charge of starting an investigation aren’t you, we can still safely say that there won’t be one. It’s an unsatisfying realization for you, I feel sure.
I have to chuckle. There are – how many? – threads on this boards beseechingly exploring the possibility that Bush can be jailed for something, anything. Hard-core civil libertarians are willing to throw out any notion of Due Process if it just means getting George “Satan” Bush behind bars.
It would be frightening if it weren’t so amateurish.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Bush has set a new bar on what the Executive can expect to get away with. How the Executive can go about business. How little the Executive has to worry about overstepping their bounds.
[/QUOTE]
And that is where you and others who think like you do are wrong. In actual fact Bush has done no more than several other presidents have done. Granted, when other presidents lied (or exaggerated) to get us into wars they might not have done everything Bush did…but then, some presidents have gone beyond even what Bush has done as far as violations to the constitution or expanding the powers of the president.
It’s the attitude that Bush has somehow done more wrong than any other president in history that keeps this stuff going around and around. It’s like trying to portray Dark Helmut as Darth Vader…it makes Bush bigger and badder than he really is (or was).
If Bush has in fact done illegal things that could actually be prosecuted in a real court of law then I have no doubt he WILL (eventually) face such prosecution. What I see in these kinds of threads is the same kind of fishing expedition that was launched against Clinton…and will probably end in the same way.
I think folks around here are miffed because the Republicans went after Clinton on such a fishing expedition but the Dems don’t have the stones to do the same thing against Bush…and that is what it boils down to. The Dems either know something the faithful don’t (i.e. that there is no evidence against Bush that would be useful in a court of law, and not just to convince those who hate Bush that he’s guilty), or they are to gutless to do anything about it. If it’s the later and there actually IS some real evidence then it will come out eventually. And when it does my guess is that history will not only condemn Bush et al but the Dems (and Pubs) in Congress as well.
-XT
[QUOTE=Shodan]
All three scenarios are acts of war, so any country attempting this, or holding Mr. Bush as hostage, can expect some difficulties.
[/QUOTE]
While #3 could arguably be an act of war, #'s 1 & 2 are simply the arrest of a private citizen under an indictment/charge from the ICC.
This article in Slate is a good introduction to which administration officials might be implicated in which of the various scandals, the cases for and against prosecution.
Notice the common name in every set? That naughty, naughty Alberto!
[QUOTE=Frank]
While #3 could arguably be an act of war, #'s 1 & 2 are simply the arrest of a private citizen under an indictment/charge from the ICC.
[/QUOTE]
No no no. Anything that tarnishes the Great Leader is clearly the work of Demonkind and therefore a harbinger of the Final Battle. Ergo, an act of war. QED.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
And that is where you and others who think like you do are wrong. In actual fact Bush has done no more than several other presidents have done. Granted, when other presidents lied (or exaggerated) to get us into wars they might not have done everything Bush did…but then, some presidents have gone beyond even what Bush has done as far as violations to the constitution or expanding the powers of the president.
[/quote]
Examples ? Modern examples ?
[QUOTE=xtisme]
If Bush has in fact done illegal things that could actually be prosecuted in a real court of law then I have no doubt he WILL (eventually) face such prosecution.
[/quote]
Never happen. Even if he doesn’t pardon himself before leaving.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
What I see in these kinds of threads is the same kind of fishing expedition that was launched against Clinton…and will probably end in the same way. I think folks around here are miffed because the Republicans went after Clinton on such a fishing expedition but the Dems don’t have the stones to do the same thing against Bush…and that is what it boils down to.
[/quote]
Well, there’s the differences that Bush is responsible for a lot more damage, and is a lot more corrupt. The Democrats actually have reason to suspect major wrongdoing.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
The Dems either know something the faithful don’t (i.e. that there is no evidence against Bush that would be useful in a court of law, and not just to convince those who hate Bush that he’s guilty), or they are to gutless to do anything about it. If it’s the later and there actually IS some real evidence then it will come out eventually. And when it does my guess is that history will not only condemn Bush et al but the Dems (and Pubs) in Congress as well.
[/QUOTE]
And ? Big whoop. Bush will still be enjoying himself somewhere, free and unpunished. And future ( especially ) Republican Presidents will know that they too can do anything they like, ignore any and all laws without punishment. It’s all part of America’s slide towards dictatorship.
The last 8 years are all about the triumph of evil, and I expect the aftermath to be more of the same. The scum will go unpunished, the innocent pay the price, and the next wave of scum will be even worse, just as Bush was worse than his predecessors.
If we’re back on the actual arrest of Bush shipping him off to the ICC, well, he’d have to have charges pending at the ICC before that could happen.
If Bush has actually charges pending at the ICC, I think we can take it as given that he’s not going to be traveling to Venezuela. And not even to the UK. The pre-existance of such charges would mean it was abundantly clear to Bush that it was extremely risky to travel outside the US.
But since there will not be any such charges by the ICC, the question is moot. A more realistic question is that Bush will be charged not with nebulous crimes against humanity, but with crimes against a national of the country he is visiting. So he visits Germany, and a German prosecutor decides to arrest him for the torture of a German national, like that guy the CIA kidnapped, tortured, and then dumped on the side of the road months later once they figured out they had the wrong guy. The obvious parallel is the Pinochet case.
The trouble is that while one ambitious prosecutor can make such a charge and arrest the former president, the likelihood is that certain people will pull certain strings to get him released temporarily, and then Bush hops on a plane never to be seen in that country again.
But again, if we imagine a future with Bush behind bars, the most likely method of acheiving such a goal is prosecution here in the US. Given that this is an uphill battle, any other international method is even more of a long shot.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
You’ve gone from demanding that Bush be convicted to demanding that he be at least tried to to reluctantly accepting that he can’t be tried without more evidence, and now you’re screaming that there should be an investigation get get that evidence.
Since there is no legal threshold to the commencement of an investigation, we’ve finally reached a point where it can’t be shown definitively that your claims are unfounded.
However, because the people in charge of starting an investigation aren’t you, we can still safely say that there won’t be one. It’s an unsatisfying realization for you, I feel sure.
[/QUOTE]
Funny…I see this more as an indictment of your slim values than my wishy-washiness.
I have retreated on my position to see if there is any common ground to be had anywhere. I do not see how any honest examination of the evidence that is available to us can avoid the conclusion that Bush & Co. have seriously and flagrantly abused their power.
Yet here you sit more interested either in busting my chops or defending your boy Bush (or both). I am not a lawyer but do the best I can and you play the law Professor who I suspect knows a case could be made but will make his students squirm to find their own answers. That is fine for law students but here on the SDMB it is gamesmanship to one up someone else. Presumably we are here to educate each other and not pull fast ones such as telling me there were no US laws against violating the Geneva Convention for war crimes (and there is…at first I took you at your word but now I know better).
As I cast about for this or that you have the temerity to blame me for shifting my positions? Because I listen to you shut down one avenue after another you bust my balls for looking for a new approach? Particularly when I have to doubt if you are really being forthcoming in your answers? I have no doubt what you say is true but I get a distinct impression there is more nuance you are leaving out that is inconvenient to your arguments.
Not to mention your approach often seems…evasive. In your world a proper defense may include quibbling over the meaning of “is” or what a “lie” actually constitutes. Perhaps there is no way around that and standards of proof require such rigor. As a defense attorney you probably love it. But for us sitting on the sidelines it smells like the pile of bullshit it is. Maybe we have to live with that but I will not apologize for pointing out how lousy it is.
So, many of us see someone who has been more criminal in his actions in the United States than, well, anyone I can think of. As an attorney one would assume you hold the law in high regard. Yet you seem perfectly content to let someone like Bush wiggle through the legal cracks and evade any accountability with nothing more than a shrug. Everything is fine in your world. Things are as they should be. That scares me coming from someone like you who I have respected here.
So be it but for my part I hope someone will find an answer to this.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
All three scenarios are acts of war, so any country attempting this, or holding Mr. Bush as hostage, can expect some difficulties.
[/QUOTE]
None of these scenarios is an act of war, except 3), and only if the people abducting Bush were on the payroll of the country where he would end up.
As long as he’s president of the USA, Bush benefits from diplomatic immunity. Once he isn’t any more, he’s an ordinary citizen of the USA, and can be arrested for any reason in a foreign country, be it for shoplifting or for war crimes.
And if you think that it’s just rhetorical garbage : do you think that the USA would actually declare war on the UK in the hypothetical scenario 1? There might be only a snowball chance in hell that it would happen at the first place, but if it did, there would also be only a snowball chance in hell that it would result in a war. Actually, I think the OP’s hypothetical is way more reasonable than the belief held by some poster that it would cause a war.
[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
Jump up and down with glee, drive to state store and buy champagne.
Jump up and down with glee, drive to state store and buy champagne.
Jump up and down with glee, drive to state store and buy champagne. 
Savour the irony.
[/QUOTE]
Stop shaking the damned champagne!
[QUOTE=xtisme]
(besides, the UK snatched him in the first place in the OP so I’m guessing they would go along).
-XT
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily so. Having Bush arrested would depend on a decision of a British court. The British government, on the other hand, might not be particularly happy with such a prospect. So, a scenario where the UK would vote against an indictment at the UN security council but where it would nevertheless be arrested later in the UK because an arrest warrant has been issued by Spain (like in the Pinochet case) is conceivable.
Posters referred a lot to the uproar in the USA, but what about the uproar in the UK if the government tried to void a court’s decision by ignoring the law and having Bush set free?
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I am not a lawyer but do the best I can and you play the law Professor who I suspect knows a case could be made but will make his students squirm to find their own answers. That is fine for law students but here on the SDMB it is gamesmanship to one up someone else.
[/QUOTE]
Huh, I could have sworn you’ve argued with Bricker before now.
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
Huh, I could have sworn you’ve argued with Bricker before now.
[/QUOTE]
True 
But I do not recall snarkiness like that directed at me so I took exception.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I have to chuckle. There are – how many? – threads on this boards beseechingly exploring the possibility that Bush can be jailed for something, anything. Hard-core civil libertarians are willing to throw out any notion of Due Process if it just means getting George “Satan” Bush behind bars.
It would be frightening if it weren’t so amateurish.
[/QUOTE]
Bricker, I don’t know if this was aimed at me, but I’m going to respond as if it were. I don’t think President Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes, though if impeachment were politically viable I’d support it. And, as I don’t believe in Satan, I wouldn’t call him that, either.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
If we’re back on the actual arrest of Bush shipping him off to the ICC, well, he’d have to have charges pending at the ICC before that could happen.
*If Bush has actually charges pending at the ICC, I think we can take it as given that he’s not going to be traveling to Venezuela. And not even to the UK. The pre-existance of such charges would mean it was abundantly clear to Bush that it was extremely risky to travel outside the US.
But since there will not be any such charges by the ICC, the question is moot. A more realistic question is that Bush will be charged not with nebulous crimes against humanity, but with crimes against a national of the country he is visiting. So he visits Germany, and a German prosecutor decides to arrest him for the torture of a German national, like that guy the CIA kidnapped, tortured, and then dumped on the side of the road months later once they figured out they had the wrong guy. The obvious parallel is the Pinochet case.
The trouble is that while one ambitious prosecutor can make such a charge and arrest the former president, the likelihood is that certain people will pull certain strings to get him released temporarily, and then Bush hops on a plane never to be seen in that country again.
But again, if we imagine a future with Bush behind bars, the most likely method of acheiving such a goal is prosecution here in the US. Given that this is an uphill battle, any other international method is even more of a long shot.
[/QUOTE]
Right.
<sigh> For the 4th or 5th time, GWB has not commited any crimes that the IIC is interested in.
On 10 February 2006, the Prosecutor published a letter responding to complaints he had received concerning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[115] He noted that “the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal”, and that the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the actions of nationals of states parties.[115] He concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that a limited number of war crimes had been committed in Iraq, but that the crimes allegedly committed by nationals of states parties did not appear to meet the required gravity threshold for an ICC investigation.[6*
Internship - Wikipedia…_Criminal_Court
He is not guilty of any Crimes against Humanity and no International body of any real standing is interested in arresting him for Iraq.
True, Lemur866 posits a possibility- " A more realistic question is that Bush will be charged not with nebulous crimes against humanity, but with crimes against a national of the country he is visiting. So he visits Germany, and a German prosecutor decides to arrest him for the torture of a German national, like that guy the CIA kidnapped, tortured, and then dumped on the side of the road months later once they figured out they had the wrong guy. The obvious parallel is the Pinochet case. " but he also has the answer.
**
Bricker** is right- despite the unpoularity of GWB, the experts on this sort of Int’l law have pretty much come out and said there is no such crime GWB will be prosecuted for.
I do expect a few lawsuits to come his way, mind you.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
He is not guilty of any Crimes against Humanity and no International body of any real standing is interested in arresting him for Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
The International Red Cross would differ with that assessment:
Granted the International Red Cross is not a judicial organization but they have a voice and credibility sufficient to command attention. Further, their report comes after your cite. Can the ICC not change their mind in light of new evidence? Or is that guy’s statement set in stone forever?
I’ve pointed this out before when you’ve brought this up, but I’m good for a repeat:
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
For the 4th or 5th time, GWB has not commited any crimes that the IIC is interested in.
[/quote]
=/=
The ICC has only said whatever war crimes have been committed in Iraq do not rise to the level that would merit its involvement. Last time I checked, much of the world was still outside of Iraq, and unless you’ve got a cite to the contrary, the ICC has been silent on whether any of Bush’s actions elsewhere constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, or what have you.
Since you presumably are trying to debate honestly, I’ll trust you to not make this bad argument a 5th or 6th time.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Hard-core civil libertarians are willing to throw out any notion of Due Process if it just means getting George “Satan” Bush behind bars.
[/QUOTE]
Please give for-instances.
I don’t see anyone arguing that he be deprived of a fair trial, of the right to call witnesses to testify on his behalf, of the right to confront prosecution witnesses, of the right to see the evidence arrayed against him, etc.
Now I expect that if GWB were charged by the ICC, he’d be a bit of a flight risk, so I’d expect them to hold him awaiting trial on that account, but American courts do that all the time.
Everyone here, I’m sure, just wants to see the case for Bush’s guilt or innocence argued, in a forum that can hold Bush accountable if he is found guilty - no mock-trial bullshit here. But many of us have faith, based on the evidence already in the public record, that a finding of ‘guilty’ would be the likely outcome.
I personally don’t see why anyone should have a problem with that. In particular, I don’t see how that conflicts with due process.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
On 10 February 2006, the Prosecutor published a letter responding to complaints he had received concerning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[115] He noted that “the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal”, and that the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the actions of nationals of states parties.[115] He concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that a limited number of war crimes had been committed in Iraq, but that the crimes allegedly committed by nationals of states parties did not appear to meet the required gravity threshold for an ICC investigation.[6*
Internship - Wikipedia…_Criminal_Court
[/QUOTE]
Who does have that mandate?