Threads like this are why I love this place. No wait a minute, it’s just the opposite. Good thing there is more here to outweigh the negative.
I’m just waiting for the Bush isn’t leaving office/there is going to be a coup threads.
They will happen right before Bush cancels the elections.
Regards,
Shodan
What’s the penalty? What are the specific elements that must be proved against the accused, and what defenses, if any, are permitted? What are the rules for choosing members of a jury to hear the charges?
Milosevic was the criminal in that war, as you know, and so does everybody else.
…and declares himself king. And outlaws abortion IIRC…
So…the Democrats and the Republicans are both in on it. And they will protect Bush. Why do you live here in this totalitarian nightmare? You should flee to somewhere better…
Um…unless Bush declares himself king he won’t be able to pardon himself ‘Once he’s out of office’, no? And…well, I’m a bit doubtful that if he REALLY has done something that he can be prosecuted for that President Obama or President Clinton are going to be too keen to just let him off the hook. YMMV…but in my reality that doesn’t seem likely.
No doubt.
-XT
Why does there have to be only 1?
I don’t think either Bush or Clinton is a war criminal. However… B = W.C. → C = W.C. If you think otherwise, you can’t see past your own partisan prejudices.
And W.C. = War Criminal (not Water Closest).
I’ve said for years that there is probably no statute under which Bush can be impached. But on the other hand, if a President can get away with what Bush has done, I suspect a President can get away with anything. So the options on both sides are pretty terrible.
As they happened right before Bush cancelled the 2004 elections. And Clinton cancelled the 2000 elections.
Why would you need a statute to impeach Bush? Was that a typo/freudian slip? Did you mean “indict”?
I don’t believe there is any way in hell Bush gets indicted. Which is a million miles away from saying he never committed a crime.
My short list of crimes the Bush administration violated would include, as pravnik pointed out, the War Crimes Act of 2006, FISA, and the torture act (18 USC 2340). I know it is so incredibly easy to dismiss anyone who dares talk about Bush being indicted as a nutjob, and I can’t imagine it ever happening, but, in my opinion, this administration has violated many laws. And one of the major reasons I believe so is watching how hard this adminstration has worked to make sure its members or colloborators wouldn’t be indicted, from changing the laws themselves to redefining torture to trying to get immunity for the telecoms. They know they’ve broken the law, but they also want to minimize any chance of actually being held accountable for their actions.
Crossed wire in my brain. I was thinking about impeachment when the topic is indictment.
It’s just that we’ve been hearing about it for so long that it’s almost a joke now. People have been crying about that wolf for…well, since before Bush was even in office. It started off with the ‘stolen election’, but even before that people were fretting about how he’d make abortion illegal and all kinds of other dire predictions.
After a certain point it DOES look like nut jobs and wing nuts…especially since there is never any specifics that are actually, you know, a crime. I don’t think that taking us to war…even lying about it to GET us to war…is a crime he could be sent to prison for. Again, I’m no lawyer…if someone is lets see what statute he’d be prosecuted on for that. Torture? Same thing…what CRIME has he committed even if he did order the use of torture? What exactly could he be prosecuted FOR? I’d love to see something solid that was more than hand waving or simply Bush hating (‘lets prosecute him for being BUSH!’). Seriously…if someone has something solid that can really be pinned to him I would LOVE to see him go down in flames. I’ve just never seen anything credible that wasn’t simply partisan BS.
-XT
Hamlet’s post was specifics. He named the statute by title number and section.
I think it’s clear that Bush has a defense because of the statute Bush passed for that purpose, but it’s at least worthy of discussion.
You can’t just lump all criticism of Bush, or anyone for that matter, in one bushel. Well, actually, you CAN, but it would be unfair and foolhardy. Some criticism of Bush is indeed a joke (he didn’t “steal” the election, I don’t think he actually KNEW Saddam didn’t have WMD’s, and I don’t think he meant for Abu Ghraib to happen). But some of it, like the fact he’s authorized the breaking of other US laws, like FISA, is pretty well justified. Simply waving your hands and calling all criticism of Bush as flawed is inane.
I don’t think so either.
did you read my post?
I’m not saying that criticism of Bush is a joke. I think there is a LOT of stuff Bush can be gigged on. So…I’m not hand waving CRITICISM of Bush at all…that’s a strawman. What I’m saying is that people have been crying wolf about Bush breaking laws for so long that it’s nearly turned into background noise.
As for your point about the FISA…I’m no lawyer. Maybe Bricker wants to come in and answer that. If you think there is a serious case on that score do you have some cites a non-lawyer type will understand?
Yes I did. I did not, however, read the link that of the poster you quoted from. I’m still at work and only skimming atm. Is there something specific in that link I should note?
-XT
The problem with that statement is that, rhetoric of “the buck stops here” aside, there’s a jump from “This administration has violated the law,” to “This president has personal criminal liability for violations of the law.”
Now, you mention the torture act, 18 USC § 2340. It provides that torture is illega, with torture defined as the prolonged harm caused by intentional infliction or threats of severe physical pain or suffering; the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; the threat of imminent death; or the threat to another person of any of the above.
There’s also a conspiracy section, which presumably would be used to reach Bush’s conduct. But what conduct, specifically, did Bush conspire to commit that was violative of that prohibition?
I am too lazy to break out the War Crimes Act and FISA by elements, but since I’m not making the claim here, why don’t you take a shot? You’re a former prosecutor, yes? Tell me specifically what your proposed indictment would allege.
Of course they are, and of course they will. The elite in all societies has always recognized privilege as a common cause, not matter what else they disagreed with.
He can just pardon himself before he leaves office.
You mean like Nixon wasn’t left off the hook ? Oh yes, he was.
If torture isn’t a crime, then the law has no moral authority and does not deserve obedience.
I haven’t even gone into his defenses yet, and you’re right – he does, and that’s kind of fatal to a possible criminal prosecution, isn’t it?
And just a note that Congress passes the laws, and the President signs them. So when you say that Bush passed a law, above, perhaps you ought more correctly to say that Congress, at Bush’s invitation. passed a law…
Torture is a crime – it’s what conduct falls under the category of “torture” that is the subject of this debate, and was bedated in Congress for this very reason.
When the government charges anyone with a crime, they must be able to point to specific language criminalizing the conduct at issue. Ambiguity always is construed in favor of the accused. If the subject of this potential criminal prosecution were a drug dealer, you’d no doubt be outraged if the government tried to charge him with a crime based on similarly vague prohibitions.
And let’s say you’re right – that the law has no moral authority and does not deserve obdeience. Under what method or scheme do we then indict the former President?
Any we can cobble together, or simply make up. If might makes right, what does it matter if we have a legal justification ?