It wouldn’t surprise me if some non-US entity tried to indict Bush under violations of international law. Is it your contention that the US court system should do the same? If so, would support an indictment against Clinton for his war of aggression against Serbia/Yugoslavia?
If the International Criminal Court wants to write something up and ask for him, I’d be content to turn him over (and let him use his own funds to pay for his defense – yeah, I know, pipe dream). I wouldn’t even regret him successfully defending himself, as long as he had to enter the dock in the first place.
I am only familiar with the rules of international law he has broken- the OP didn’t specify US indictments I don’t think. If you’re saying he has broken no law which he can be indicted for in the US, then obviously no. If US law has something similar, then I think it would be amusing if he did, just to see him squirm, but ulitmately pointless as there’s no chance he’d be found guilty, so need to waste money and time.
As for Clinton- I know zero about that incident and so don’t have an opinion, but I will definitely read up on it now- I had no interest in world affairs back then, unfortunately.
Now that I’ve read a bit Serbia, if what I read was non partisan, then yeah, that is very similar to what Bush did and pretty bad.
In the last few weeks I’m starting to see that my reverence of Clinton that I developed in my 20’s was based on his charm and speaking ability and the success of the economy, since I knew nothing about what he did politcally and now see some it was just as bad as Bush.
I think his reference to Kenneth Starr indicated that it was a US indictment he had in mind.
As Bricker and others remind us, criminal indictments must be based on violations of specific statutes of the criminal law.
Pretty much everything I’d gladly see him impeached under falls under the heading of “abuse of power” rather than statutory offenses. I’d impeach both Bush and Cheney for lying us into a war; for initiating that war without even the most rudimentary plan for either occupation or exit; for condoning the application by his adninistration of that which we used to regard as torture; and (Bush only) for having totally fucked up both the immediate response to Katrina, and the medium-term aftermath as well.
None of these are indictable offenses.
You think you can catch Dick Cheney? You think a guy like that comes this close to getting caught, and sticks his head out? If he comes up for anything it’ll be to get rid of me. After that… my guess is you’ll never hear from him again…
I do know from the Clinton deal that there is no set criteria for what is impeachable and what isn’t- all it takes is some wag with the authority to think he has got a good reason for the process to begin- correct?
You can under the War Crimes act of 1996, although I don’t believe waging a war of aggression or a crime against peace is one of those covered. Grave breaches of the Geneva Convention are, though, and the argument could be made that the administration has authorized “torture on inhuman treatment” under the convention. That said, I agree that the chances of seeing a former U.S. president indicted and sucessfully prosecuted for war crimes under U.S. law are nil.
Something else to think about: the administration wanted to amend the War Crimes Act to reduce the likelihood of prosecution of political appointees, CIA officers, and former military personnel. They didn’t want to legalize torture exactly, but they wanted to take out a lot of the “outrages upon personal dignity” language that bans cruel, degrading and humiliating treatment short of torture. The Washington Post did a story about it:
But the MCA of 2006 revisions would throw up some roadblocks there, right? In particular, the very serious problem of Section 1004(a) of the DTA:
Yeah, that’s a pretty big roadblock. Brick wall, even.
[John McLaughlin voice]
The answer is: no.
From your lips to God’s ears.
I have another one: Wish in one hand and shit in the other…then see which one fills up first.
-XT
Isn’t lying to Congress a crime ? And torture should be, if it isn’t. Not that I expect him to be punished for anything of course.
To answer the OP, no. As President and a Republican he is above the law, and can do anything to anyone. He’ll probably pre-emptively pardon everyone in his Administration who has any responsibility, and if he can’t pardon himself the next President will, of whichever party. The elite look after their own.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html There is a chance he can get indicted in Germany like Rummy. Here,not likely. It should have been pressed the last 2 years.
When did Bush testify before Congress?
I don’t know (but doubt it is except if you are under oath)…is it? More importantly…do you have any real proof that can be taken before a court of law?
Again…I don’t know. Is it? If so, do you have proof that Bush broke the law in such a way as to be prosecuted for it? I’ve seen no such evidence. Granted, I’m no lawyer nor do I play one on TV. Do you have any indications that real lawyers thing there is a real case against Bush?
Why? If he has in fact broken the law and it can be proved…why wouldn’t he be punished? Democrats will probably be in control of 2 of the 3 branches of government sometime early next year. Do you think they will balk at throwing Bush to the dogs if they can?
-XT
Of course not, given that there has not been and never will be a serious investigation of Bush and friends. Not that it matters, since he’d just be pardoned or pardon himself.
Of course they’ll balk. They always do. And even if they had spines, they want their Presidents to be above the law too. As I said, the elite looks after it’s own.