Presidents lying to lead us into War... it should be illegal

[Mr.Moto]

@Lemur866

The problem with just passing a law making it a crime for the president to lie (to congress, presumably), is who’s going to prosecute? Normally the justice department would prosecute this sort of crime. The trouble is that the Attorney General is appointed by the president, and you’re not going to find many Attorneys General who are going to prosecute their boss. And so Congress would have to authorize a special prosecutor. But if Congress can’t even vote to cut off funding for the war, if Congress can’t even vote to bring the troops home, if Congress can’t vote for impeachment, what good is technicially allowing them to appoint a special prosecutor to indict the president?

No, the problem is that the president cannot be prosecuted while in office. He’d have to be removed from office first, through the impeachment process.

My handy-dandy Pocket Constitution says so right here:

Article I, Section 3
…Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

Article II, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

So while the president holds office, he is immune from prosecution.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

IIRC your arguments have been based on the notion that you cannot prosecute an ex-president for this by virtue of him having been a president. I do not recall you saying the actual reasons, if such a case actually could be brought, were baseless.

Besides, I was merely noting his expertise as a prosecutor in his assertion that circumstantial evidence was fine in a criminal prosecution. If you think that is in error then let us know.

He’s quite correct in that circumstantial evidence is perfectly valid in a criminal trial, and, indeed, often is the bulk of the evidence against an accused. “Circumstantial,” simply means the existence of circumstances which permit the fact-finder to draw an inference. If I hear a gunshot and rush into the bank vault seconds later to find the teller holding a smoking gun and standing over the body of the bank manager, a fact-finder is entitled to draw the inference from those circumstances that the teller shot the manager. That’s all that “circumstantial” means.

The problems with prosecuting Bush for murder when the victims are soldiers that died in Iraq, though, are not ones associated with circumstantial evidence. They are associated with causation, privilege to act, and the legal definition and theory of murder.

Here’s a post I made in GQ in a thread askign a variant of this question:

@Bricker

When someone aks a question in GQ, the question carries with it some unstated but necessary assumptions.

For example, suppose someone asks, “Is it illegal to give a bottle of alcohol to someone you know is an alcoholic?”

Upon getting an answer that it isn’t, a poster might respond: “Well, what if he was arrested anyway, and what if the prosecutor and the judge and the jury all went along with finding him guilty?”

"Then he'd be released when the case was appealed."

"But what if the appeals court also went along with it?"

"Then the state supreme court would overturn the verdict."

"But what if they also went along with it?"

"Then he could file a federal habeas petition and the federal court would order his release as the act of getting imprisoned for a non-existent crime violates the Due Process Clause."

"But what if the federal courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, what if they ALL went along with it?"

At that point it’s pretty clear that the train has left the station, GQ-wise. It would be nonetheless relevant to ask, “Has there ever been any similar case?” because the inference is that, if there has not, there is no reason to suppose that all these thin ad-hoc assumptions have any realistic application to the question.

If you don’t, then you concede that GQ is meaningless, because any question can be answered a different way if we can continually add ad-hoc assumptions to refine it. “Can a person survive a 100-amp, 10,000 volt shock?” “No.” “But what if they were in the world of Pokemon, because Team Rocket routinely gets shocks that must be that big and they survive!”

Yes, but nothing in the original question suggested we were discussing the world of Pokemon. See the point?

Now, when you ask if the legal system would suddenly accept a dramatically novel theory of criminal liability, you basically move into the world of Pokemon. The original question (presumably) wanted to know about the real world and the realistic possibility of charging Bush with murder. If we assume that the legal system will suddenly begin working in a dramatically new fashion, then how can we possibly begin to answer any legal question? It can’t be done. But if we assume that the legal system will continue to operate as it has, then we may safely answer the question.

The hallmark of our legal system is predictability. In fact, case law holds that a criminal statute is constitutionally void unless it provides clear notice of what people fall within its scope, what conduct is forbidden, and what punishment may be imposed. If “persons of common intelligence” must “guess at [the law’s] meaning and differ as to its application” then the law may not be enforced, because it’s too vague, and thus constitutionally infirm. Laws may be void for vagueness as written, or as applied to a particular situation.

Now, the OP of this thread at least concedes the impossibility of such a prosecution (although he focuses myopically on the practical impediments and not the legal ones) when he invites discussion in whether the law should criminalize such actions. It shouldn’t, it won’t, and most important for the answer to your post… it doesn’t now. And circumstantial evidence is not the weak linchpin.

[Sinaijon]

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
What the hell more do you need?[/QUOT]

An impartial jury of people who have no prior knowledge or preconceived notions about the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Good luck with that.

[villa]

@elucidator

Who did Saddam invade and/or threaten? Kuwait, once, years previously, and got spanked and sent home.

Well there is also Iran, in 1980.

[Lemur866]

@Mr. Moto

No, the problem is that the president cannot be prosecuted while in office. He’d have to be removed from office first, through the impeachment process.<snip>

So while the president holds office, he is immune from prosecution.

I don’t think that’s what the constitution says. That passage limits the power of impeachment only to removal from office. In other words, congress can impeach an official and thereby remove them from office, but the impeachment itself carries no other penalty. If the official has committed a crime they must be prosecuted for that crime through normal channels before they can be punished beyond removal from office.

Clearly, the president is not immune to criminal prosecution merely because they hold the office of president. If George Bush pulled out a gun tomorrow at a press conference and shot George Stephanopoulus dead, he could clearly be prosecuted for murder. And if convicted, he could be sentenced to prison, and could conceiveably continue to serve as president from his jail cell. To remove him from the presidency he’d have to either be impeached or declared unable to discharge his duties.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

Here’s a post I made in GQ in a thread askign a variant of this question:

I take exception to your implication I (and others of us) are constantly trying to move the goal posts and playing some “what if” Pokemon game.

I, at least, am trying to work within the laws as written. I believe the evidence for Bush & Co. lying is manifest and easily laid out. Some people want to play games with what a “lie” actually means but on any reading I can make of it knowing deception, misrepresentation of facts and outright lying add up to the same thing in the end. Most six year olds would spot it.

Further, barring some protection a president enjoys making him immune to prosecution, the actual law seems to exist to call his actions into question.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

SOURCE: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1001.html

Looking up what that meant I found:

United States v. Gaudin

It is uncontested that conviction under this provision requires that the statements be “material” to the Government inquiry, and that “materiality” is an element of the offense that the Government must prove. The parties also agree on the definition of “materiality”: the statement must have “a natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.”

SOURCE: United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995).

So, where did Bush & Co. violate the above? Most easily is Bush’s address to January, 2003 State of the Union address given before Congress:

@George Bush

…the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa…

Then you have Colin Powell’s speech before the United Nations which rested crucially on a single debunked source in Germany (Curve Ball).
And even if all the above is somehow inapplicable to Bush & Co. why rest on lies alone? Seems to me he violated the Geneva Convention. IIRC violating a treaty the US is a party to is violating US law.

HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD

…the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention…

SOURCE: HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD

I would also like to think FISA violations would have been sufficient.
That Congress dropped the ball on a lot of this I agree. However even when Congress has tried to look in to these matters Bush & Co. wave Executive privilege around and ignore supoenas and mandates to testify before Congress. So, even if Congress grew a pair how is it they are supposed to get these guys if they cannot even begin to investigate?

Finally, and ultimately to the OP, all the hand waving away of this seems to suggest that the President is indeed above the law. The most we can hope for is Congress will block him somehow and potentially remove him from office (which of course in this case would leave us with Cheney which is arguably not an improvement). The President can apparently do anything he wants within the realm of his powers as president and he is not liable for a single thing. Conjure any heinous hypothetical you like, no matter how absurd, and tell me how a President could be criminally prosecuted. I’d like to hear it.

The OP’s notion that this is an awful state of affairs I agree with. Arguments that any law to hold the president accountable makes things worse are certainly fair comment and worth debating but to think, “Meh…it’s fine” flies in the face of justice and the belief no one should be above the law.

[Mr.Moto]

@Lemur866

I don’t think that’s what the constitution says. That passage limits the power of impeachment only to removal from office. In other words, congress can impeach an official and thereby remove them from office, but the impeachment itself carries no other penalty. If the official has committed a crime they must be prosecuted for that crime through normal channels before they can be punished beyond removal from office.

Clearly, the president is not immune to criminal prosecution merely because they hold the office of president. If George Bush pulled out a gun tomorrow at a press conference and shot George Stephanopoulus dead, he could clearly be prosecuted for murder. And if convicted, he could be sentenced to prison, and could conceiveably continue to serve as president from his jail cell. To remove him from the presidency he’d have to either be impeached or declared unable to discharge his duties.

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 69. My bolding.

I know of no legal theory that posits that the president could conduct his term from prison. It is inconceivable that such an arrangement could be permitted constitutionally. If you know of a reputable cite that supports your view, I’d love to see it, because I’ve never heard that such a thing could be possible.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Mr. Moto

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 69. My bolding.

I know of no legal theory that posits that the president could conduct his term from prison. It is inconceivable that such an arrangement could be permitted constitutionally. If you know of a reputable cite that supports your view, I’d love to see it, because I’ve never heard that such a thing could be possible.

I tend to agree a president needs to be removed from office before being criminally prosecuted if for no other reason it is hard to imagine a president being able to fulfill his duties as president while dealing with a criminal prosecution.

And while Hamilton’s writings are interesting do they have any bearing whatsoever on the law as it is written today? That is can a court use his writings as a justification for a judgment?

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

I take exception to your implication I (and others of us) are constantly trying to move the goal posts and playing some “what if” Pokemon game.

I, at least, am trying to work within the laws as written. I believe the evidence for Bush & Co. lying is manifest and easily laid out. Some people want to play games with what a “lie” actually means but on any reading I can make of it knowing deception, misrepresentation of facts and outright lying add up to the same thing in the end. Most six year olds would spot it.

Further, barring some protection a president enjoys making him immune to prosecution, the actual law seems to exist to call his actions into question.

Looking up what that meant I found:

So, where did Bush & Co. violate the above? Most easily is Bush’s address to January, 2003 State of the Union address given before Congress:

Then you have Colin Powell’s speech before the United Nations which rested crucially on a single debunked source in Germany (Curve Ball).
And even if all the above is somehow inapplicable to Bush & Co. why rest on lies alone? Seems to me he violated the Geneva Convention. IIRC violating a treaty the US is a party to is violating US law.

I would also like to think FISA violations would have been sufficient.
That Congress dropped the ball on a lot of this I agree. However even when Congress has tried to look in to these matters Bush & Co. wave Executive privilege around and ignore supoenas and mandates to testify before Congress. So, even if Congress grew a pair how is it they are supposed to get these guys if they cannot even begin to investigate?

Finally, and ultimately to the OP, all the hand waving away of this seems to suggest that the President is indeed above the law. The most we can hope for is Congress will block him somehow and potentially remove him from office (which of course in this case would leave us with Cheney which is arguably not an improvement). The President can apparently do anything he wants within the realm of his powers as president and he is not liable for a single thing. Conjure any heinous hypothetical you like, no matter how absurd, and tell me how a President could be criminally prosecuted. I’d like to hear it.

The OP’s notion that this is an awful state of affairs I agree with. Arguments that any law to hold the president accountable makes things worse are certainly fair comment and worth debating but to think, “Meh…it’s fine” flies in the face of justice and the belief no one should be above the law.

Wait a moment.

I understood your earlier argument to be discussing prosecuting Bush for murder.

If you’re merely discussing the prosecution of Bush on some, any, criminal ground at all, then I agree you’re not in crazy Pokemon land anymore. I think you’re wrong, but not crazy.

Now let’s discuss the particulars you offer:

1. Bush’s January, 2003 State of the Union address was violative of 18 USC § 1001.

You quoted section (a), but failed to quote section (c), which is fatal to your claim:

@18 USC § 1001(c)

(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

A State of the Union address is neither an administrative matter nor an investigation or review conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress.

2. Colin Powell’s speech before the United Nations which rested crucially on a single debunked source in Germany (Curve Ball).

And what law prohibits lying to the United Nations?

*3. Violation of the Geneva Conventions. *

That’s the problem with international law. What’s the criminal penalty associated with violating the Geneva Conventions?

4. FISA violations

Here, you’ve alleged an actual crime. This is one of the reasons I said you’ve moved out of “Pokemon territory.” Sure enough, violation of the privacy rules carries a penalty unless done according to law, which, as is now alleged, the
requests to the various telecom companies did not do.

The problems with a criminal prosecution for this are massive problems of proof, however. You’d have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush specifically ordered this, and that the order exceeded his Art. II power, and that he had the necessary mens rea – that is, he didn’t believe the orders were within his Art. II powers or that such belief was objectively unreasonable. If he can point to a Justice Department finding that told him they were, he has a defense called estoppel. (A cop can’t tell you that skateboarding in the park is legal, and then arrest you when you skateboard in the park).

But, unlike the first three points, this one is not crazy as a matter of law. It just suffers from an almost insurmountable uphill climb on matters of proof.

[Lemur866]

@Mr. Moto

I know of no legal theory that posits that the president could conduct his term from prison. It is inconceivable that such an arrangement could be permitted constitutionally. If you know of a reputable cite that supports your view, I’d love to see it, because I’ve never heard that such a thing could be possible.

Of course it wouldn’t really happen. If the president really were convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison, he’d be impeached immediately, or probably before. Or he’d be declared unable to discharge the duties of president, and the Vice President would take over under the 25th Amendment.

But if Congress refused to impeach, and the cabinet refused to declare the president unable to discharge his duties, and the president refused to resign, well, you’d have a situation where the president was serving from prison. It’s happened that lesser officials have continued to hold office despite being incarcerated. And congressmen have been sent to prison, and they would continue to hold office unless congress voted to expell them. From wikipedia:

In 2002, Traficant was indicted on federal corruption charges for taking campaign funds for personal use. Again, he opted to represent himself, insisting that the trial was part of a vendetta against him dating to his 1983 trial. On April 15, he was convicted of 10 felony counts including bribery, racketeering, and tax evasion. The House Ethics Committee recommended that he be expelled from the House, and on July 24 the House voted 420-1 to expel him. Gary Condit was the lone “no” vote and there were nine members who voted “present.” Traficant was the first representative to be expelled since Michael Myers’s expulsion in 1980 as a result of the Abscam scandal.

After his expulsion, Traficant ran as an independent candidate for another term in the House while incarcerated in a federal prison in White Deer, Pennsylvania. He received 15 percent of the vote (27,487 votes) and became one of only a handful of individuals in the history of the United States to run for a federal office from prison. The election was won by one of his former aides, Tim Ryan.

.

And the Hamilton quote is ambigous. Just because the official would be liable for prosecution after impeachment and removal from office doesn’t mean that the official is immune from prosecution until after impeachment. It just means that impeachment cannot impose any penalty beyond removal from office, and that the mere fact of being a government official does not bar prosecution.

[Mr.Moto]

@Whack-a-Mole

And while Hamilton’s writings are interesting do they have any bearing whatsoever on the law as it is written today? That is can a court use his writings as a justification for a judgment?

Just a brief glance shows me that Justice Kennedy cited the Federalist Papers in 2005 in an opinion striking down some state laws barring interstate wine shipments. Wikipedia says the papers have been cited by the Supreme Court 291 times - I’m sure lower courts have cited them more.

The papers are not definitive by themselves - the Constitution at all times overrides them. But they are certainly useful in understanding constitutional principles as they were understood by the drafters of that document. And let’s remember that Publius was Hamilton, Madison and Jay - their opinions on this subject are valuable to say the least.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

That’s the problem with international law. What’s the criminal penalty associated with violating the Geneva Conventions?

I do not know. Are you saying if I, personally, do something counter to a treaty the US has signed I cannot be prosecuted? Or I can be prosecuted but to no effect because there is no penalty for breaking a treaty? Looks to me like US courts have jurisdiction over treaty violations which to me implies treaties have the force of law behind them.

(highlighting mine)

US Constitution: Article III, Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Ultimately I guess what gets me about all this, and I have asked before in this thread but gotten no response to, is the seeming ability of the President to do anything he wants, within the realm of his duties as President, and have absolutely no repercussions for any action worse than being impeached and removed from office.

This goes to the OP again. If it is true the President is beyond any measure of legal liability for his actions then maybe that should change. I believe it used to be that all previous Presidents had some measure of respect for the office. To be sure many have had their missteps and screwups but none have so thoroughly abused their power as George W. Bush has. He has lowered the bar so far on what you can get away with when holding that office maybe it is high time some measure of accountability was applied to the presidency.

I agree that crafting laws to hold a president accountable come with dangers of their own. We do not want to cure the disease by killing the patient. But I do not think it is an insurmountable problem and is a notion worthy of debate.

[XT]

@tagos

It’s a shame there are many million dead vietnamese and however many hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi’s whose opinion we can’t ask.

Well, you know we can’t ask the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese who died AFTER we left either, nor the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (or Vietnamese) who died before American intervention. So…it’s kind of a silly statement.

@tagos

If a leader wants a country to go to war they should lay out the honest facts in all their muddy glory. And if then, and they have the power or authority, they choose to go to war they can stand or fall on their honest opinion. It is never excusable to lie a nation into an aggressive war of choice.

Out of curiosity when has a US president ever done this? For that matter, when has any leader ever done this? To my knowledge no President, Prime Minister or Dictator for life has ever given any information that would either show ‘the honest facts in all their muddy glory’ or even information that would contradict whatever plan or path they had chosen to take. What politician EVER does such a thing…war or no war?

-XT

[Whack-a-Mole]

@xtisme

Out of curiosity when has a US president ever done this? For that matter, when has any leader ever done this? To my knowledge no President, Prime Minister or Dictator for life has ever given any information that would either show ‘the honest facts in all their muddy glory’ or even information that would contradict whatever plan or path they had chosen to take. What politician EVER does such a thing…war or no war?

Agreed Presidents have not nor should they hand their National Intelligence Estimates to the public for comment. But we have a right to expect our president will give us the short version that is supported by the NIE and other info they have gotten.

When our leaders tell us the bad guys HAVE bioweapons and are ready to use them I think we all assume they have good reason to believe that. When it turns out to be a single crazy Iraqi who the US intelligence never actually questioned that said Hussein has these as the basis for that critical claim as a justification for war I think we have a right to be pissed off.

Or claims linking 9/11 to Hussein and Hussein to Al Qaida despite US intelligence never telling the President that was the case (indeed the day after 9/11 Bush told Clarke to find a link between them and even then Clarke said we will look again but we already have and there is none…that was on Day #1).

Niger yellow cake uranium? We were told it was an issue. The administration based it off of one debunked letter. We were never told this other crucial linchpin was based off of one piece of flimsy evidence that had likewise been proven to be wholly unreliable.

Even if you want to argue timelines about who knew what when and they made statements at the time that they thought were correct they never, ever came back and told us these critical issues had been proven baseless (and well before we went to war).

In short I think we have a right to expect more honesty than we were shown here.

[XT]

@Whack-a-Mole

I do not know. Are you saying if I, personally, do something counter to a treaty the US has signed I cannot be prosecuted? Or I can be prosecuted but to no effect because there is no penalty for breaking a treaty? Looks to me like US courts have jurisdiction over treaty violations which to me implies treaties have the force of law behind them.

My (non-lawyer) take is…you would be prosecuted by US law if you somehow violated a US treaty.

I don’t believe the GC was violated by the actions taken by the US against Iraq (we’ve had threads on this in the past and usually they simply break down along partisan lines without ever really answering the question…leading me to surmise that this is a gray area). I believe that the process followed in bringing the US to armed conflict with Iraq followed that set down in the Constitution…and that the Constitution by definition would be a higher authority than any treaty (i.e. while they would have perhaps the same force, you couldn’t have a treaty that violates the Constitution…and since both Congress and the President followed the process it would not be illegal by our system).

Not being a lawyer or really that versed on international law or the GC and how it applies vs the Constitution (or even how the GC views the US invasion, or who would interpret it from a legal perspective) I couldn’t say though. And my guess is…no one else can really either since I’ve never seen anything definitive about this by any kind of official ruling.

Ultimately I guess what gets me about all this, and I have asked before in this thread but gotten no response to, is the seeming ability of the President to do anything he wants, within the realm of his duties as President, and have absolutely no repercussions for any action worse than being impeached and removed from office.

Presidents have broad powers and always have. Those powers are necessary if the Executive branch is going to fulfill it’s duties as specified in the Constitution. Additionally nearly ever President has sought to stretch the limits in some way or the other…and to ensure that the Legislative branch doesn’t meddle in the sphere stepped off by past Presidents.

That said, we DO have a system of checks and balances…the President can’t just do anything he pleases. If a President oversteps those boundaries then there is a process for dealing with it. In the case of the Iraqi war the President did NOT overstep those boundaries (at least not wrt the invasion)…and writing some kind of special law to deal with this is (well, would be) both silly and counter productive. I seriously doubt that, if the shoe is on the other foot sometime in the future (and it might be if President Obama sends troops somewhere overseas) that people will be singing the same tune. Ironically, I expect the tune to change for some on BOTH sides if that occurs.

But I do not think it is an insurmountable problem and is a notion worthy of debate.

I think legally the problem IS insurmountable as I don’t think a real law or set of constraints could be crafted that would not make it politically impossible for the President to ever do anything in the future. Like I asked up thread, who would judge (12 ordinary citizens??), who would decide, how would it be prosecuted…how would you avoid simply setting off politically motivated witch hunts since ‘lie’ and ‘lying’ are pretty subjective standards depending on where one stands on any given issue (example: Look at how some folks look at the US participation in Bosnia, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq…and the wide range of what various people, politically or partisan motivated consider a ‘lie’ or a ‘just war’).

And this again disregards the fact that we ALREADY have a process for dealing with this kind of thing if it really becomes an issue. Hell, we have several…we could, for instance, not elect idiots to the office of the President in the future. Or we could at least not RE-ELECT them for og’s sake!

-XT

[John_Mace]

@Whack-a-Mole

Agreed Presidents have not nor should they hand their National Intelligence Estimates to the public for comment. But we have a right to expect our president will give us the short version that is supported by the NIE and other info they have gotten.

Well, that’s what Senators are supposed to do. They all had access to the unedited NIE, but only a handful took the time to read it. Hillary didn’t. McCain didn’t. They abdicated their responsibility in the most important matter that Congress can consider-- whether or not to authorize war.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@xtisme

I don’t believe the GC was violated by the actions taken by the US against Iraq .

Never mind the invasion.

I noted above that the SCOTUS ruled in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the government was in violation of the Geneva Convention. That was one narrow case. I think there is more there WRT torture. More, this was not a case of some out of control soldier or general. This was policy implemented by the government and almost certainly was based upon directives from Bush.

Not being a lawyer or really that versed on international law or the GC and how it applies vs the Constitution (or even how the GC views the US invasion, or who would interpret it from a legal perspective) I couldn’t say though. And my guess is…no one else can really either since I’ve never seen anything definitive about this by any kind of official ruling.

I agree our Constitution will trump any treaty if someone is being prosecuted for a treaty violation. I do not see how anything in the GC runs counter to the Constitution though.

Presidents have broad powers and always have. Those powers are necessary if the Executive branch is going to fulfill it’s duties as specified in the Constitution. Additionally nearly ever President has sought to stretch the limits in some way or the other…and to ensure that the Legislative branch doesn’t meddle in the sphere stepped off by past Presidents.

Again I agree. However there simply have to be limits. Part of the whole point of the US is we were tired of Monarchs and wanted a government answerable to the people. While there may not be a bright line in this I think Bush has arguably wandered far past any reasonable gray area. And that is my point. Previously Presidents may have danced around the line a bit but still stayed relatively close to it. We never thought a President could be this callous and disregard the integrity of the office so thoroughly. As such we may need some restraint.

I think legally the problem IS insurmountable as I don’t think a real law or set of constraints could be crafted that would not make it politically impossible for the President to ever do anything in the future. Like I asked up thread, who would judge (12 ordinary citizens??), who would decide, how would it be prosecuted…how would you avoid simply setting off politically motivated witch hunts since ‘lie’ and ‘lying’ are pretty subjective standards depending on where one stands on any given issue (example: Look at how some folks look at the US participation in Bosnia, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq…and the wide range of what various people, politically or partisan motivated consider a ‘lie’ or a ‘just war’).

I am not suggesting something easy to bust every president but damnit I DO think people should be held accountable for their actions. NO person in the US should be above the law but that is precisely what we seem to have here. Bush can invade with no reason, imprison with no regard to law, torture in contravention of both decency and actual treaties and spy on American citizens in contravention of the Constitution and US law and he gets what for all that? A spiffy pension and a library and lucrative speaking engagements? C’mon…

Even if you think he is somehow innocent of all the above I think there is ample question about that innocence and that is precisely why you go to trial. When you see enough smoke you go to court, lay out the prosecution and defense and determine if there really was a fire. That is what they are there for.

And this again disregards the fact that we ALREADY have a process for dealing with this kind of thing if it really becomes an issue. Hell, we have several…we could, for instance, not elect idiots to the office of the President in the future. Or we could at least not RE-ELECT them for og’s sake!

Clearly good people vote for bad politicians. Happens all the time. Your only other answer to all this is impeachment which basically fires the president. Seems to me some crimes demand a bit more than losing your job.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@John Mace

Well, that’s what Senators are supposed to do. They all had access to the unedited NIE, but only a handful took the time to read it. Hillary didn’t. McCain didn’t. They abdicated their responsibility in the most important matter that Congress can consider-- whether or not to authorize war.

Oh…I am with you on this.

I rail about Bush to be sure and I DO think he deserves it but I have not forgotten Congress practically abdicating all their responsibilities either. Democrat and Republican alike.

I despise the Democrats even more for this (and I say that as a liberal leaning person). I expect the Republicans to be hawkish and support their guy. Does not absolve them of their duties but I can see it. However, in a two party system you expect each to act as a check on the other to restrain (at least) the worst excesses. The spineless Democrats are particularly worthy of scorn on this count.

I’d go so far as to say many of them (both sides) were criminally negligent. No…I do NOT want to start a debate on how we go about prosecuting Congresscritters here. That said I wouldn’t mind in many cases if it could somehow be done.

[Saint_Cad]

@Clothahump

The only president that I know of (in modern times, at least) who did this was LBJ, with the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

I’ve heard a lot of - hell, way too many - people whine about “Bush lied, people died”. I have yet to hear anyone show any conclusive proof that Bush lied. Lots of supposition, lots of theory, none of it stands up.

Honorable mention to Woodrow Wilson. He wins reelection based on “He kept us out of war” and then promptly gets us into World War I

[zamboniracer]

It seems to me that the Bush non-impeachment and the Clinton impeachment have shown the need for implementing some bright line standards as to when a president (and vice president) should be impeached, “high crimes and misdemeanors” being too vague. Lying us into war and beheading the justice department Assistant AGs for politcal purposes ought to be sufficient grounds and lying about receiving sexual favors from an intern shouldn’t be, but that’s just me.

Further, we should clear up the issue of whether the prez and VEEP must be impeached before being prosecuted for crimes. IMHO as it stands now they must be impeached before being prosecuted, which is a wrong-headed way to do things IMHO and puts the prez and veep above the law, where no person should be.

A prez who has time to go to fund raisers and to host youth t-ball games during the all star break during wartime has plenty of time to defend himself in a crimnal case.

The danger is of course, of prosecutions that have little merit but are just pursued for their nusiance value. There would have to be a high penalty for those, and there would have to be procedure for the president being incapacitated during legitimate prosecutions, the same way there is a procedure where the prez is incapaciated for medical reasons.