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

Great Debates
141

And Telemark brings out the salient point.

A Grand Jury isn’t a tool to force prosecutors to prosecute more cases. A Grand Jury is present as a check to totally unreasonable prosecutors.

For SCOTUS to act as a Grand Jury, it would have to have the power to refuse to allow impeachment if it felt the articles of impeachment didn’t meet constitutional muster.

In other words, SCOTUS as Grand Jury puts one more obstacle in the way of impeachment.

As for the argument that it’s horrible how impeachment is political, THAT’S THE POINT. Impeachment only extends to the removal from office. Impeachment isn’t about punishment of the bad-deed-doer, it’s about protection of the country. Said bad-deed-doer can be prosecuted at will, regardless of impeachment status. A sitting president can be prosecuted for crimes, and a president who has committed no crime except bad judgement can be impeached.

Impeachment is not and should not be punishment. Seriously, you’re all mixed up in your contention that Bush is immune from prosecution. Bricker only stated that he’s immune from certain kinds of prosecution. For instance, kidnapping is illegal. A kidnapper can go to jail. But a police officer who arrests a person who is later proven to be innocent cannot be charged with kidnapping, despite the fact that they arrested an innocent man. The prison guard cannot be charged with kidnapping either. And so on. The government officials who carried out their duties in good faith cannot be charged with crimes even if it later turns out to be a mistake.

Now, if a cop just pull over a completely innocent person and fabricates evidence against them and gets them sent to jail, they CAN be charged with a crime. But they probably won’t be charged with kidnapping, even if the cop knew the victim was innocent. They’ll be charged with perjury, or obstructing justice, or what have you. See the difference? I don’t know why you fail to understand this. Bricker wasn’t trying to trick you or convince you that the president is above the law, you’ve consistently misinterpreted what he said.

142

I used a grand jury as a convenient comparison as there are some distinct similarities. However this is its own idea so suggesting it varies from a grand jury in concept is hardly surprising. It’s its own thing. And just an idea at that. I have argued for it but I am not married to it. As I noted previously however I think impeachment as politics is a provably broken concept. It has nothing to do with right and wrong and everything to do with which side of the majority an Executive sits. Seems a pathetic way to run a country. That it once worked is fine but our politicians are changing the game more and more and this tool of government is being mishandled.

I get that just fine. And I am not misrepresenting Bricker. I see a person I believe has committed a crime. Not just a crime but several. They are overt. They are out in the open. Bricker wants me to stop carrying on about it and just accept there really is no legal avenue for prosecuting that person…certainly not successfully.

I am not sorry if I refuse to be ok with that status quo. I may well have to live with it but I will not like it or stop pointing out what I see as a grave miscarriage of justice (or lack of justice as it were).

143

I did. And I tried to provide historical examples of US Presidents’ actions that resulted in deaths.

Should Carter be sent to jail, for ordering US servicemen to take part in a hazardous operation?

If any Iranians were killed by the Delta Force teams that took part in Operation Eagle Claw, should Carter be tried for murder? (It would be inconceivable for such an operation to be ordered and not expect the possibility that the Iranians might actively resist an intrusion into their country.)

Making new Rules of Impeachment, just for the express purpose of impeaching Bush, and only Bush, for doing something every other President has done, sets a pretty bad precedent.

Wilson, FDR, and LBJ surpass Bush in number of deaths that resulted from their decisions, and arguably, they even “violated” the Constitution in various ways to do it.

The standard of proof in proving these actions criminal (and thus negating any Art. II protections) is fairly burdensome, I grant you. We need a “smoking gun”, like Nixon gave us.

Let’s take torture: Let’s say Bush told the director of the CIA (George Tenet) “Find out exactly in what way Saddam was involved with the attacks on 9/11. Do whatever it takes. Make it your priority.”

Did Bush just order torture? I think that there is a shadow of a doubt that he did, there.

Should he have “known” that George Tenet would turn around and use torture (which, while somewhat undefined in the specific details, was already illegal)? If “Yes”, Why? Do the Presidents get Mind Reading skills upon swearing in?

144

Under what I said he would only be potentially prosecutable for that if Congress impeached him explicitly for sending troops to wherever. No impeachment Carter is fine.

Not that it matters now but impeach them then if you think it is merited. Start a new thread exploring it. Could be an interesting historical debate.

Reading the Salon article cited earlier looks like the Office of Legal Counsel provides a “golden shield” for the administration to hide behind on this (which seems bogus in its own right but whatever). So, while it seems Bush & Co. are legally shielded from prosecution I would contend, under your example, that at first Bush would not be guilty for telling Tenet to do whatever it takes. When evidence of torture came out and Bush not only did nothing to stop it but actively tried to justify it and “legalize” it then I think he has turned the corner to guilty.

145

The overt clear crimes you allege–I’ll crib from the Slate article (An interactive guide to Bush-administration lawbreaking.) and divide them up as they do:

Wiretapping
Coercive Interrogation. Actually, I’d prefer to call that Torture.
CIA Tapes. That’s the destruction of interrogation tapes allegedly showing torture when the existance of the tapes became public.
DOJ Hiring
DOJ Firing

Now, which crimes have Bush’s fingerprints all over them?

Notice that lying to congress isn’t on that list. That’s because lying to Congress isn’t a crime unless you are under oath, then it’s perjury. And the president isn’t under oath during the state of the union address.

Now, lying to congress about something like the Iraq war might not be a crime, but I think it could easily be an impeachable offense. It’s pretty douchebaggy. Only problem is, Congress gets to decide when the president gets impeached for douchebaggy things that aren’t crimes, not you or me. And it takes 66 votes in the Senate to make it worthwhile, and those votes aren’t there, and no matter how much you or I might wish that the Senate Republicans would throw Bush under the bus for this, you know and I know that it aint’ gonna happen.

The other things are harder to prove that Bush was criminally responsible. Not only are you dealing with the Article II arguments, but also all sorts of national security arguments…in other words, the potential prosecutors can’t see the evidence because it’s secret, which is mighty convenient. And plus, lots of these things were likely done in face to face meetings, not via memos. If Bush authorized torture he likely did it by telling the CIA head to do whatever it took. The real people on the hook for the torture scandal are the lawyers who wrote memos saying that certain things weren’t torture when they clearly are, and also the guys who actually carried out the torture. So John Yoo is in trouble, as are the grunts. And prosecuting the grunts only gets you so far, because eventually you reach a guy in the chain of command willing to take the fall to protect his bosses. And prosecuting top guys like Yoo also suffer from that problem. But you never know who’s gonna crack. My hunch is that people who would authorize torture might be weak-willed types, the kind who’d crack at the prospect of 30 year jail sentences.

For most of these scandals it’s hard to pin things on the president directly, if you’re thinking in terms of criminal prosecutions. But impeachment is different, but then the problem is Congress, not the law. But the really fruitful angle is the old “It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup”. But that takes time.

146

Aren’t you setting up, with your idea, an enormous case of entrapment by estoppel? Ok, so, I’m the president, and as president, I want to wiretap Americans, which according to you is normally illegal but allowable under the President’s Article II powers. But I’m concerned about that, so I check around and the Attorney General tells me, “Yeah, legally, you’re fine doing that because you’re the President and your Article II powers let you do that in case of emergency.” or something. So, reassured I’m not breaking the law, I order the wiretaps.

Then, Congress gets pissed at me for ordering the wiretaps and impeach me for it, and I’m convicted. As I’m packing my stuff up in the U-Haul in front of the White House, FBI agents come up to me and say, “Mr. Amazing, you’re under arrest for violating the wiretap statute. Please come with us.”

So, finally, it’s my trial. Shouldn’t my attorney just be able to say, “Your Honor, these charges are crazy. Before my client did his wiretapping, he checked with the Attorney General, the top law enforcement officer of the land, and was told it was ok for him to order the wiretaps. What’s more, at the time he ordered the wiretaps, it was legal for him to do so under his Article II authority as President. It was only because of the Whack-A-Mole Act, which retroactively criminalized his prior actions due to his impeachment, that he’s even on trial today.”?

147

This (and the rest of your analysis) is what I am on about. Clearly nailing the president to the wall seems to be exceptionally difficult for a variety of reasons.

That said are you suggesting Bush was not a part of a lot of that? Is it conceivable to you that all these people were just off on their own jaunt and Bush was clueless what his administration was on about? Further, as various pieces came to light did Bush ever fire anyone for misconduct? Or even issue a clear directive that a particular misdeed must stop immediately? And if he was so clueless about all this to me that argues for gross criminal negligence (yeah I am sure someone will tell me you cannot prosecute a president for that but certainly in spirit he would be guilty of that).

As a CEO of a company there comes a time when you are liable for what is happening in the company. Sure individuals may do something wrong of their own accord and the CEO is not held liable as it should be but if the CEO abets their actions and lets them continue then I think he or she has become a party to the crime.

In the end I am suggesting the system is broken when such flagrant violations can occur and you know who is at the pinnacle of it all and that person is seemingly untouchable. A lot of mid-level schlubs may take a fall because of him but he will walk free and happy.

I also might note, much as I may come across here as a Bush hating loon, as the Salon article shows the questions over Bush’s culpability are hardly the province of conspiracy nuts. A lot of people are asking these questions and looking at them seriously.

148

How far does this go?

First there is the issue of demanding the answers you want from the DOJ (or whoever it is who issues these legal opinions to the president). IIRC there was a stink over this where some attorneys were not returning the correct answers and were sacked or at least removed from that position and replaced with someone who would mangle the law in a way the Bush administration wanted. In short the administration wanted a particular result and demanded a legal theory be constructed to allow it…no matter how tortuous.

Second, does such an opinoin really absolve the president of all wrongdoing? Say he asks the AG to find a way to bash Nancy Pelosi over the head with a bat. The AG responds if you think she is an imminent threat you can do it. So Bush hits her with the bat then says he had reason to believe Pelosi was a spy. What evidence? Can’t tell you because of Executive Privilege and it would reveal secret sources and compromise agents in the field. Oh yeah, the AG said it was ok too.

Ok…that’s pushing it but seriously…how far can this be taken? Seems a nifty get-out-of-jail free card to me.

And what happens if the legal advisers get it wrong? Bush is still a-ok? As long as a president can get someone to sign off at the DOJ he can do pretty much anything? Sure, the dope at the DOJ may get his ass handed to him but who cares…

Also note the SCOTUS ruled the administration was in violation of the Geneva Convention as well as the UCMJ so the SCOTUS was not buying the administration arguments for some of this.

149

Forgot this part.

Lying to Congress is mentioned in the article. However I think they may mean administration officials as opposed to Bush himself. However, is it not possible for a guy caught lying to roll over and say he was directed to and thus implicate people further up the chain (dunno myself…asking).

150

I haven’t noticed a strong tendency to come up with actual evidence of crime in this thread. ISTM that this whole thing about lying to Congress is particularly weak.

Rockefeller and the intelligence committee found that the statements about Iraqi WMD (for instance) made by Bush and Cheney were generally substantiated by the best intelligence available. So [list=A][li]We already did the investigation you want, and it found exactly the opposite of what you expected, and []Rockefeller is on record as saying the Iraqi WMD alone are enough to justify the AUMF, []see A and B[/list]So if you want to impeach Bush, you are going to have to come up with some justification for not indicting Rockefeller (and Hilary and Gore and Albright and practically every other politician in captivity). [/li]The attorney general stuff you are never going to get anywhere with. That wasn’t illegal.

You’re never going to get anywhere with any of the rest of it, either. So fuck it - worst-case scenario is Bush stalls for six months,

Only six more months of this nonsense.

Regards,
Shodan

151

You keep touting this point and it is wrong.

The report said some of it was substantiated. Some != All. Clinton was impeached for a lie about a blowjob so it would seem there is not a high bar to this.

Further, big surprise that this political committee managed to waffle. As you have noted, and I agree, Congress is not blameless in this. So they in true political fashion play cover their asses. Big surprise. :rolleyes:

But hey…don’t let anything like 935 documented false statements get in the way of your blinkered world view.

And Rockefeller saying he agreed with this? So what? Based on what info did he say that? Bush & Co. deception?

Besides I said it before I hold Congress accountable too. There was an NIE available to them at some point in all this and IIRC five members went to read it. That is appalling! Democrat and Republican alike. We are paying them to do a job and it is hard to envision a more important task they can have than deciding on whether to invade another country. They damn well had better read that stuff or so I would think.

Should we bust them all? I dunno but I wouldn’t be bothered if someone tried to make the case. Nevertheless you start with Bush. It was his doing that set the whole ball in motion. It was his and his administration’s deceptions that set the stage everyone else played on. As such he bears the lion’s share of the responsibility.

152

Well, the title of your OP refers specifically to lies leading to war. Statements about Iraqi WMDs seem to be the reasons that this board at least believes are the primary cause for the AUMF being passed, so the primary reason given for the Iraqi war is not a lie. (There was also discussion of various human rights violations, and violations of the conditions of the cease-fire agreement, and I don’t believe any one thinks these were false.)

But again, the main reasons given for the invasion were generally substantiated by the best intelligence at the time.

Well, then it seems you finally realize why this is all such a waste of time. Congress isn’t going to impeach Bush, because the Democrats in Congress all said the same things, and based their statements on the same intelligence estimates. If this kind of after-the-fact hindsight is “lying”, then the head of the committee to investigate is just as much a liar as Bush. Sauce for the goose…

I didn’t go very far into this, but the first few seem to be statements about Iraqi WMD, and I think we already covered that.

The best intelligence available at the time.

Regards,
Shodan

153

The Saddam is a bad guy reasoning came after the war started and no WMD were found in order to find a new justification for having gone in. There are lots and lots of nasty leaders in the world with human rights violations and such but so far that has not gotten us to invade any of them.

As for the WMD it was a lie in some cases or at the very least monstrously deceptive and misleading. I really wish you would educate yourself on this.

  • Niger Uranium: This has been debunked. What is more it was debunked before going to war. Way before. CIA Director Tenet even told Bush to take references out of a speech about it but Bush did not. Of course this led to Joseph Wilson and the outing of his CIA wife because Wilson (who had personally investigated this, on the ground in Niger) blew the whistle on the Bush administration using this as a fabrication for war.

  • Mobile Weapons Laboratories: All based almost exclusively on the information of one man code named Curveball. Americans never interviewed him. The Germans who had him expressed their belief he was unreliable and crazy. Some critical pieces of Curveball’s information were proven false with on site inspections prior to the war. Highly placed CIA officials involved in the case stated everyone knew Curveball info was crap.

  • Hussein & Al-Qaeda: Although Bush & Co definitely drew the parallel between these two US intelligence never made the link or told them any such thing. There was one reported meeting between Hussein and Al-Qaeda that came to nothing. From Day #1 post 9/11 Bush was told there was no connection. Bush asked Richard Clarke, the then counter-terrorism Czar in the government, to find a link between Al-Qaeda and Hussein. Clarke responded he’d of course look again but they had already looked at this and found no connection.

  • Aluminum Tubes: There was substantial disagreement in the intelligence community over whether these were for nuclear weapon production. Bush had been specifically apprised of this in an NIE summary. So another key rationale for war was at best a hotly debated topic and nowhere near proven.

Note ALL of the above are at best flimsy and weak evidence for war. If you want to maintain that is what they knew at the time they reported to Congress and the public and the United Nations fine although suggesting they “knew” those claims to be true is patently false from the get-go. Further, in every case, evidence debunking the lot was found and known but the administration marched to war anyway.

Got anything else? Seriously, read the above links. Find more reports on this if you like. You see the same story of deception over and over.

No, not even close. See above.

I do not know what Congress had available in evidence that was not washed and redacted by the Bush administration. Do you? I think in one case they had access to an NIE that almost all failed to read although I have a vague recollection one Senator complained the NIE was redacted to uselessness and asked for a less redacted one. Not sure if it was that particular report though…I’d have to look it up.

It is not “after-the-fact hindsight” lying. The administration KNEW its rationale for war was flimsy and intentionally deceived the world. The knew before they went to war.

154

False. Bush mentioned this specifically as one of the reasons before the invasion.

From your cite -

From your cite -

From your cite -

If you have a cite where Bush says that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11, feel free to quote it.

Nowhere near a lie, either.

Yes, it was the best intelligence available at the time. That’s what Rockefeller’s report says.

It’s not like we haven’t been over this a hundred times. There were meetings between the Iraqis and al-Queda, but that isn’t a connection. No Iraqi WMDs were ever found, even if there were. The Duelfer report says Saddam was ready to restart his nuclear programs, but he didn’t present any threat. Bush lied when he sad Iraq was involved in 9-11, even though he never said it.

And so on. Like I said, only six more months of this nonsense to go.

Regards,
Shodan

155

You are being overly optimistic IMHO. I expect that 20 years from now we’ll still be hearing about it…and there will be folks who will still be anticipating GW going on trial at for war crimes or something else, and telling themselves that Obama WOULD have put him on trial except for <handwave shrug wink>…

There is, simply put, nothing you or anyone else can say to convince people that are convinced GW is guilty of a huge laundry list of crimes. If there was an impeachment trial and GW was let off it would be because of politics (it probably would be at that). If GW was dragged before a US court but was found not guilty it would only be proof that the fix was in. If he was dragged off to Europe and put on trial for war crimes or whatever and found not guilty then they would have yet another excuse. So, it’s tails they win, heads Bush is guilty, anyway you slice it.

-XT

156

That is such a lame “slippery slope” argument, I almost got this thread sent to the Pit.

Can I say, “Horsefeathers!”?

Look, there can be bipartisan support for wars, & often is. Bush’s problem is that this war was recommended against as probably counterproductive by his own State Dept., & he followed his passion instead of cool reason. So men are coming home missing multiple limbs for an enterprise likely to do no real good in the long term. That’s not partisan, that’s just analysis. Those who think it’s partisan are partisans blinded to any non-partisan analysis by their own partisanship.

157

Can I say horseSHIT?

Well, you know, there WAS bipartisan support for the war. Perhaps you forgot the whole Congressional support thingy that authorized the President to invade Iraq?

And the Congress? Why didn’t they listen to the State Departments recommendations?

The President was authorized by Congress…and both had at least the tacit approval of the majority of the citizens, considering that Bush managed to get re-elected AFTER the Iraqi invasion.

Ah…I see. Yes, very convincing. I’m unsure what any of this has to do with what I was talking about…but your unbiased viewpoint is certainly, um, refreshing.

Um…righto chief…

I have no idea how any of what you said there relates to what you quoted from me. It seems clear that you either didn’t understand what I was getting at or decided to just go off on a tangent and simply include my quote as some kind of starting point. Just to summarize what I actually WAS saying, if you make it easy to impeach a President for using his authority to take us to war (with initial Congressional support) it will be a cold day in hell before any President risks taking the US to war, regardless of the provocation, because of partisan politics. If one simply looks back on every war the US has ever engaged in, there were ALWAYS folks from the other party that were opposed to some aspect or other of that war, and would have used any such mechanism as propose by the OP to take political advantage of the situation.

So yeah…I think it is a valid slippery slope. What that has to do with what you actually wrote (including the appeal to emotion with the soldiers coming back wounded…nice touch there btw) I have no idea.

-XT

158

People seem to forget this all the time. There was a lot more bipartisan support for the Iraq AUMF (77-23, with 29 D’s voting “aye”) than there was for the 1st Gulf War (Senate vote: 52-47, with 10 D’s voting “aye”).

159

Welcome to politics.

It is worth remembering the AUMF was in a post 9/11 world. The first Gulf War did not have that crutch.

Further, Bush & Co. provably misled the public and Congress in making a case for war. The whole premise they put forward turned out to be so much bullshit. The public assumes for things like this the government will, generally, not mislead us.

As for failures I agree and have said I think Congress was woefully lacking in doing their jobs. Both democrats and republicans. Just proves to us making good decisions takes a back seat to politics and opinion polls. Hardly a news flash but I had always hoped on something of this import the congresscritters would actually pay attention and make reasoned and principled decisions. Guess that was naive of me.

I would also say our mass media failed us here. Presumably they are a watchdog on the government and blow the whistle when something is not right. It’s another debate and been done that there is a lot of evidence the media failed miserably in this respect and got on board the Bush Express. Again, I think some of that can be laid at the mood after 9/11. You just do not sell papers with, “Whoa! Wait a minute! These aren’t the guys you want!”

160

Well, yeah. That’s the whole point.

So what?

Pffft. The public didn’t want war, and Congress didn’t do due diligence. Bush mislead Congress, but only because they let him. Just looking at the Senate there were plenty of Senators speaking on the Senate floor about how the danger just wasn’t there.

I don’t feel misled. I never for a second thought the war was necessary. The more I saw and read, the more I was convinced of that position.