Do you think this will happen once his term is up? I have a feeling that there is some Kenneth Starr type person waiting in the darkness to attack (with an indictment for war crimes and God knows what else) once he leaves office and is vulnerable.
What say you?
No. We’ve had this discussion quite a few times before. It just won’t happen. I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but I’m not holding my breath.
Only if he has a skeleton buried deeply in the closet. You can forget about prosecution for anything that has happened in Iraq.
I don’t see how he can be viewed as anything but a war criminal (not letting the inspectors finish, etc.), but to brought up on charges you would need someone with the authority and the willingness to do so, and I don’t see it happening either, sadly.
I think it’s quite possible that he will be indicted in a jurisdiction outside the US. However, that would have minimal effects on him, apart from making it harder for him to travel to that jurisdiction.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
On what charges exactly? Unless something we don’t know about comes up then I don’t see how or what he’d be charge with. If there IS something out there we don’t know about…well, we wouldn’t know about it yet, would we? It’s like saying ‘Do you think Obama will be assassinated while in office?’ or ‘Will Hillary be caught scrumping an intern when she takes the WH?’ or ‘Will Bill have another affair when Hillary gets the top spot?’…er, ok. Maybe that last one would be easier to predict.
-XT
Another reason you won’t see it happen: If Bush is a war criminal, then so is Clinton. And so were most presidents in the modern era. What Bush has done is hardly unique. Not letting the inspectors finish is peanuts. Besides, he had Congress telling him he didn’t have to.
No, and speaking as a liberal, I actually hope he doesn’t. It would set a very bad precedent. Politics in this country suck hard enough with every potential president having to worry about being indicted by his/her political enemies immediately upon leaving office. And don’t for a minute think nearly every damn president wouldn’t be vulnerable to this kind of crap.
This is absurd.
I guess the “Impeach him now!” crowd has finally accepted the practical impossibility of that – something that they were so intent upon after November 2006 – and this is the first fall-back position.
And by the way – when you indict someone, you have to specify the precise section of U.S. law that has supposedly been violated. You cannot indict someone for violations of “international law” or “war crimes.”
So if you were in charge of indicting former President on January 21st, 2009, Wee Bairn, what would you charge him with? (Hint: “Not letting the inspectors finish” is not a crime under federal law.)
Judging from the OP, I don’t think diggleblop thinks he should be impeached.
Devil’s advocate here. He had them telling him that by showing them the small bit of evidence that seemed to suggest WMDs, and not showing them the large bit of evidence that there were not. Also let’s not forget his administrations willful campaign of disinformation. PDF Cite .
Bush is a steaming pile of crap, perhaps not to the level of impeachable (although the only test of what’s impeachable is what the congress is willing to impeach for [Which for some reason includes perjury about infidelity in a civil case] :rolleyes: ), but let’s not try to prune his legacy so as to suggest that he was actually a decent president. He’s been a failure all his life, and because of political connections and the novelty of having a father/son team in the white house, the most important job on Earth was entrusted to someone not up to the challenge.
Well put. If there were some obvious criminal activity, untied to any particular political policy, then maybe. Let’s say he got caught downloading child porn or something. But indictment on actions directly tied to policy decisions is just ludicrous, unless we want to see it happen every 4 years.
The Republicans set a bad precedent when they impeached Clinton. Fortunately, the Dems are trying to break what could easily have turned into a cycle.
So, what statute would he be indicted under?
Same question. I mean let’s be clear-- you think it’s a criminal act for a president to make misleading statements in public? You think Bush is the only president, or one of only a few, who could be prosecuted under such a law?
I don’t think Bush was actually a decent president. I’ve said many times on this board that I think he’s been one of the worst.
Crime against peace? If he had let them finish and the had found proof they were planning aggression then he would have been ok- even Clinton said he would have attacked if the inspectors had found proof of nuclear arms related activity.
True enough. But judging from post #4, Wee Bairn thinks he should.
My point is, though, that “crimes against peace” isn’t a federal crime… Congress has never passed a law called “Crimes against peace” with a prison sentence proscribed if someone is found guilty. It’s just a generic “bad” concept.
I still hold out hope that post-W there will be hearings and investigations that will lead to some members of his administration being indicted – but W himself, no. And I’m more or less OK with that, for the reasons Sophistry and Illusion already mentioned.
Wars of aggression are a crime under international law as you know.