What does it take to initiate a formal investigation? How much more evidence do you need here to start an investigation? Will nothing short of a smoking gun suffice? Do prosecutors often initiate investigations with less evidence than we have here (I’d be willing to bet they do)? Is it not SOP for the investigations to first roll up people lower in an organization and then get them to rat on the next guy in line till you get the mafia boss?
I am not being rhetorical above. I am curious as to the answers to those.
My last post cited something darn near a smoking gun. Seems to me a properly done investigation might stand a good chance of ferreting that out.
So again, why no investigation? This is not a witch hunt because we do not like Bush’s tax cuts. These are real and documented issues here alleging some of the worst crimes there are.
And I am saying that the Red Cross report comes a fair bit later. Is it possible (just possible) that the Red Cross has more evidence of wrong doing than when that ICC statement was made?
Is the ICC now forbidden to ever change their mind even if (note I said if) more evidence comes to light?
You seem to vacillate between “what should be” and “what actually is” as convenient for your most recent assertion.
Ken Starr was “properly motivated” and, sure enough, he found an actual crime. And once found, officials had a duty to address it.
The problem with Starr’s investigation was always the motive behind it and the massive outlay of dollars to uncover a relatively minor crime, relatively speaking. Most murder investigations don’t spend what Starr spent.
“There are no charges pending against GWB in the ICC”
=/=
“GWB has committed no acts that the ICC would regard as sufficiently serious war crimes to warrant its attention.”
And as I’ve already pointed out:
“GWB has committed no acts in the Iraq war that the ICC would regard as sufficiently serious war crimes to warrant its attention”
=/=
“GWB has committed no acts that the ICC would regard as sufficiently serious war crimes to warrant its attention.”
That’s nice and all, but WTF does that have to do with your claim that I and others don’t believe in due process?
Ditto this. It’s long been known that if you throw unlimited resources into investigating anyone, you’re likely to eventually come up with something to nail them on. That’s either an indictment of the entire legal system, or an argument for reasonable limits on a prosecutor’s investigative resources. I think we’d agree that it’s the latter, but either way, so what?
Sorry. But it had a great deal to do with your response, so let’s review the bidding:
You’re right that Due Process concerns aren’t directly implicated by demanding that officials investigate. However, the demand for an investigation that will cost millions to pursue a potential crime for which the evidence isn’t clear is both unwise and reminiscent of the Ken Starr fiasco.
So… accepting your second statement as the reasonable one, your stance seems contradictory to me. We should have reasonable limits on a prosecutor’s resources, but we should still launch a full-scale investigation of the President?
If you add the correct caveat to that it comes closer though…that being “nor does there seem to be any initiative at this time to bring said charges.” I’ve heard of zero initiative on the part of the ICC to bring charges now or in the future against GW. To be sure, that may change…and puppies and kittens COULD fall from the sky too.
While the statements aren’t equal they seem to be equally true…if we focus on the Iraqi war or on the broader war on terrorism is moot from the ICC’s apparent perspective as they don’t seem to be interested in bringing charges against Bush regardless. This of course doesn’t mean anything wrt his innocence one way or the other…it just shows that attempting to use the ICC for such a standard is flawed as they are pretty much a toothless organization who hasn’t even been able to bring leaders in nations with much worse records than GW up on charges either (let alone get them to trial). Perhaps this will change in the future as they take a more active role…but I, for one, am not holding my breath that this will be so. Even if it is, I’m less inclined to hold my breath for them to bring formal charges (or even informal ones) against a President (or even former President) of a major nation like the US (or the UK, France, Germany, China, Russia, etc etc etc).
I think for these guys it is just sour grapes so pay no attention to this.
Honestly, what does it take with you people? Looks like an orgy of evidence to at least lead some investigator to think, “Hmm…maybe there is something here worth checking in to.”
I’ve heard zero about that either - but then, I’d heard pretty much zero about their charges against anyone besides Milosevic and that other Serbian bigwig, and didn’t hear a whole lot about those. Nor have I any idea about their procedures - whether they cast their gaze over the world and decide who to institute proceedings against, or whether someone outside has to bring charges, or what.
But I think that information is necessary to your argument.
I don’t see the need for anything like the Starr Chamber’s $40 million (and that was as of November 1998; he may have run up the meter a bit more before he closed up shop).
Just open up the Bush Administration records to all, minus stuff that has to be redacted or held back due to genuine national security concerns. Scan it and put it all up on the Web.
Let the bloggers of the world go through it and find the important stuff.
At that point, if there’s a case, we’re talking maybe $2-3 million to assemble and present a case. Closer to the Patrick Fitzgerald level, but allowing for more time and personnel because we’re talking about what would then be a former President, rather than some guy named Scooter.
How’s that a contradiction? You’re saying the Starr investigation had too much in the way of resources. I agree. But presumably a full-scale investigation can be done with resources that are sufficient rather than excessive.
You can argue that it may be hard to tell where the line is, and I’d have to agree that it’s a challenge. But there’s no contradiction between ‘enough is good’ and ‘too much is bad.’
Your arguments are like a herd of cats: they leap from place to place without ever settling down into some predictable start-to-finish sequence.
Your first link is titled “Charges and Evidence: Impeachment of George W. Bush”
This thread is about the criminal arrest of Bush. But perhaps, because the link does mention crimes, you intended it to be a reference for criminal charges that could be filed. OK, let’s look at that.
The first case they mention is:
18 USC § 371 provides:
Here’s the problem: the language of that law simply doesn’t reach to the conduct of lying to Congress and the American people to start a war. The law has never been applied that way in the history of the nation. Criminal laws must clearly define what conduct is prohibited. Prosecutions under this law are not, and have never been, for the kind of conduct that we’re discussing.
In other words – no “investigation” will help your cause here. The problem is not “what he did” but the fact that even if he did everything you say he did, it’s not a crime.
It’s appropriate for the website to mention this, since Congress could, if they wanted, impeach him for this conduct… but no court would convict him of a crime for violating this statute.
Now, that was a lot of typing for me to address the first point in the first link you posted. I don’t have time to similarly debunk every one-link link you want to toss up to every I-Hate-Bush site out there.
Nor should I. It’s for you to SPECIFICALLY lay out what conduct you believe an investigation could uncover and what law SPECIFICALLY you believe was violated.
Otherwise, you’re essentially saying, “Hey, if we look long and hard enough, I’m sure we’ll find SOMETHING we can get him for!”
Where I come from, we don’t give two-year-olds white wine.
Yeah, I thought the first answer pretty much nailed it. Regardless of W’s guilt, I’d love to see the American idea of our own immunity punctured in that way. Even if it were done to a President I agreed with, over trumped-up charges & unfairly, I’d at least crack a smile. Heck, I’d grin like an idiot all day. This country is too full of itself in general.
Would you feel the same if it a leader from one of the several other world leading countries who had their immunity punctured? It’s funny how people want to see the US brought low…especially since they don’t seem to get that it’s not JUST the US in such a position. Most of our Euro buddies ALSO have the same ‘immunity’…as does Russia, China, India and even such stellar nations as North Korea and Iran.
Hell, when you look at it, it’s easier to compile a list of countries that DON’T have this magical immunity than those that do…
Ask France or the UK, ehe? Ask Russia. Ask China. Ask India. Ask that mad asshole in North Korea who is STILL in power. Saddam was so spectacular because he was an exception, not the norm. Look at the folks who have ACTUALLY been arrested for ‘war crimes’ or ‘crimes against humanity’ and you will see a fairly distinctive trend.
Sorry, but your anti-American panties are in a bunch here…it’s pretty obvious that it’s not JUST America who has such immunity. It’s just the America seems to be the favorite target of people who look at this from a blissfully skewed perspective.
Well, that immunity bites in general, but I feel that the ideals of America are such that we should consider taking advantage of it to be beneath our principles and dignity.
And I love to see George the Lesses (& Co.) be a test case for that proposition.
Yeah, they stay at home, stay in office, surrounded by armies and don’t offend the US too much. As people here have pointed out, Bush won’t need more than a Secret Service detail, nor will he have to stay in the US, or even in power to avoid punishment.
OK. Not being particularly familiar with international law, can you direct me to the cite that defines the specific crime and its penalties, what defenses are available, and the like?