From the takes I’ve seen with regards to treaties and their control over Presidental authority, the consensus I’ve found is that the Constitutional authority overrides any treaty. This is probably one of those times you don’t want a case on the matter going to the Supreme Court, similar to the War Powers Act. I believe the general consensus on the War Powers Act would be that it would be struck down if it ever came before the Supreme Court.
According to your hypothetical, yes Bush should be impeached. He broke international law by starting the war. I also that that the lie itself would not get him in trouble, but rather the motovation for the lie (oil, money for Halliburton, whatever it may be).
Breaking away from the hypothetical, I think it would be very hard to prove that Bush lied at the start.
Yeah, I do see your point and completely agree with it.
However, I’m sure that you can see that my statement was not completely inapplicable. Technically, Bush probably hasn’t broken any specific laws that we know of, however he has transgressed the spirit of the law.
Not sure. I’d ask a lawer to weigh in on whether or not a person can be convicted for breaking the “spirit” of the law w/o actually breaking the law. If so, then I guess you might have a point. Personally, I hope that it is not possible.
Sounds like you really don’t like Bush and want him to go to jail. Good luck with that thought, but I’m not biting unless actual laws are broken, or a lawyer sets me straight on the “spirit” thing. 
I would love to know the answers to these questions posed by CarnalK. Is milroyj still in the house?
If a President deliberately and knowingly lied about reasons to send his country into war so as to serve special/political interests, could he not be prosecuted for anything? This is all assuming that this could be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court room. While it may seem obvious to me that it is the case, it may be difficult to prove.
“If the president makes ill-founded or outright false claims in the SOtU address is he breaching Art.II sec3 and thus his oath of office?”
Show me a SotU Address that does not make any false claims and I’ll change my opinion of politicians and gladly entrust them with my life’s savings.
Your reaching. Reaching.
I know you understand that I wasn’t suggesting that someone go to jail for breaking the “spirit of the law” and I know you probably understood perfectly well what I meant, but I’ll explain it anyway.
Our laws can never be perfect. Those who are essentially criminal often get away without having technically broken any law; just as innocent people are sometimes prosecuted using laws that shouldn’t be applied to them.
However, that doesn’t stop people’s innate sense of justice being grated upon watching men commit atrocious acts without seeming to be held accountable. The “spirit of the law” is something that resides within everyone that is loathe to see criminals get off without consequence.
No, Bush can’t go to jail even if millions think he has broken the “spirit of the law” and, actually, that is how it should be. However, you’re right, I don’t like Bush or any of his ilk, and, yes, I would like to see him go to jail provided it could be proven in a court of law that he’d committed the acts that I think he has.
“I know you understand that I wasn’t suggesting that someone go to jail for breaking the “spirit of the law” and I know you probably understood perfectly well what I meant, but I’ll explain it anyway.”
Thanks for the clarification. But, honestly, I did think you were advocating jail for spirit of the law breaches. It really did sound that way. Really.
I’m afraid you might have to get your sense of justice at the ballot box in 2004. I think that’s you’re only recourse. We’ll have to see how that plays out. Bush is looking pretty popular now, but there’s a lot of cud to be chewed between now and Nov '04.
But most politicians’ lies don’t go so far as to be part of a concerted effort to convince the public to support a war that is actually based on corrupt interests.
Having said that, you do have a point about the utter absence of a SotU speech that did adhere to the truth.
I actually don’t think Bush will be brought up on charges. However, it is still interesting to ponder the possibility.
I think conspiracy to murder would most certainly apply (with regard to targeting Saddam) if it could be shown that Bush started the war to serve personal ends.
Yep, I’m still reaching.
My bad. I thought you were being sarcastic. I do now see how I wasn’t completely clear. I’m glad I did clarify.
As for seeking recourse at the ballot box in 2004, I happen to have lost all faith in the democratic system of government. A system that produces nothing but a long chain of incompetent and corrupt puppets is not all it’s cracked up to be IMHO. While I do acknowledge that there isn’t any system of government in use today that works where democracy fails, it doesn’t change my disgust at what goes on. Believe it or not, I’m not a Democrat. My personal philosophy leans more towards conservative ideology. However, I just do not see any difference of any real worth between liberal or conservative candidates. I don’t really think there is in fact two parties - just two factions of the same party.
“I actually don’t think Bush will be brought up on charges.”
Well, whatever our personal wishes and desires are, it is a good idea to keep ones feet planted on the ground at least part of the time. Enjoy.
Yep, as long as one doesn’t go so far as to stick one’s head in the sand.
The Iran-Contra affair reveals a handy nail upon which to hang administration officials who lie to congress:
If the same ball gets rolling over the buildup to the Iraq war, as this diatribe suggests is a real possibility, the president will find himself in the unenviable position of proving his utter lack of knowledge of the conspiracy that lead him to invade Iraq. If he fails, impeachment and disgrace are his reward. If he succeeds, just disgrace.
Good Lord.
Squink, the charge of lying to Congress may only be brough against someone that lies in TESTIMONY to Congress. Lying to Congress in the course of a speech is not covered.
Research is your friend.
- Rick
True John Mace, the SotU address is more of a campaign speech than a news report. It would be reaching to expect anyone to be held accountable for it. (hmm, after I finished typing that I realized it might sound facetious. Didn’t mean it that way - I think it’s at least legally true)
Purposely misleading Congress would be another matter, if it were proveable (e.g tape recordings of Bush ordering perjury).
Bricker there has been actual testimony before congress re Iraq as well as the SotU address. That was the second part of my post that sparked this tangent and also probably what Squink was thinking of.
Any little white fibbers in there?
Exactly, CarnalK. There’s no point beating on the speeches when other, more damning, lines of attack present themselves.
I’d say yes to the impeachment question, but going to war for incorrect, dishonest, or whatever reasons isn’t a crime. I can see why it isn’t, but it also seems sensible to say “if one person can be punished for killing another, why is a person who orders a war that kills thousands not accountable?” In some cases, of course, these people can be tried as war criminals, but that wouldn’t apply to Bush anyway (US doesn’t support the ICC and refuses to join). I guess the sad fact is that whether you go to war for honest or dishonest reasons doesn’t really matter.
The war on Iraq - I’m trying not to touch the opinion part of it - violated the UN charter by the reasoning of everyone except the people who started it. There is also much concern that the US and UK are violating a number of obligations placed upon occuping powers.*
-
- Okay, I’ll be sarcastic and honest here: they don’t like this term because they don’t want to admit they attacked Iraq and not vice versa; the government says its troops are a “liberating force,” which is a made-up category. Whether the war is right or wrong, they are indisputably occupying the country.
Of course, the US is also violating international law regarding prisoners of war (the Camp X-Ray thing, where some accused Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters have been for about a year and a half, if anybody remembers that. Some are teenaged). In this case, too, the US has said they are not prisoners of war. (The standup comic in me wants to ask “Are they not prisoners, or was there not a war?”) They want them to be “enemy combatants,” another term with no legal precedent because, err, they made it up.
There are similar issues in Iraq now because there are thousands of prisoners, and what’s to be done with them is still uncertain. Other, smaller incidents, have also raised eyebrows in that they seem to violate international law.
Here’s a cute story along similar lines. www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0426-08.htm
Many X-Ray prisoners have been shown on the news, and so have Iraqis. (Recall that Bush complained that the showing of American POWs on TV was against intertional law - which it is.) This may seem ranty, but the bottom line is that pretty much nobody is accountable for any of this at the moment.
As a final point, Bush isn’t the only one who has lied about this war, so there’s the matter of who is reponsible for what as well, and I think that’d be very hard to sort out.
To quote President Harry Truman: “The buck stops here.”
Others may have a hand in all this as well but the President is the final authority in these matters, the Commander in Chief. If he can’t be held accountable if it turned out he lied to lead the country to war then I find it hard to see why anyone else should be hung out to dry (unless they mislead the President but in that case the President wouldn’t have technically lied…just operated under false information).
Not that I could see, with the possible exception of claiming that "…[Saddam Hussein’s] regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox… [and]his regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons—including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.
[/quote]
And even those claims have yet to be definitively shown false, nor the evidence used to support those claims shown to be definitvely unreliable.
And even if they were, there is no precedent for impeaching a president based on the acts of his subordinates. “The buck stops here,” is a great line, but it doesn’t translate to any sort of binding precedent as far as impeachment is concerned.
Of course, as has been noted before, since the vote to impeach (and the vote to convict in the Senate) are both unreviewable, no particular reason is theoretically needed for impeachment other than, “Because we said so.” The Congress could certainly impeach Mr. Bush based on Mr. Rumsfield’s testimony if they chose.
But it’s not a realistic possibility, nor is it a good idea.
- Rick