What reason is there to think they’d want to? They’ve ll made the same calculations and most likely have reached the same result.
Quite so. The Constitution is very clear in its use of the term “convicted”. Removal from office is the punishment following upon conviction.
I would, as self-appointed representative for the homosexual delegation here at the SDMB, ask you to please keep Mr. Bush firmly on your side of that particular fence. We do not want him. We may be forced to admit such sleazoids as Mark Foley and Larry Craig into our little pink country club, but we do draw the line at Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney.
Thank you.
Shit, how do you think I feel, he claims to be a Texan! Bush, Hagee, DeLay, Gramm and Sen. “Cornhole” Cornyn! You guys got it easy.
Besides, I was referring to a personality type, not a recreational endeavor. Fully half the human species, if not more, regards a “prick” as somewhat appealing. For me, of course, two gym classes and I had already seen as many as I’d ever want.
The first class wasn’t enough? 
Couldn’t we hand Bush over to an international war crimes tribunal after his term, though? How satisfying it would be to see the Bush administration serve a 3rd term in Guantanamo.
First, one would have to have a legal justification for taking Bush into custody against his will. And here I’m with Bricker all the way: one would need to be able to point to chapter and verse in the U.S. Code.
Being at war doesn’t trump our rights under the Constitution, even if Bush believes otherwise. And a desire to see Bush tried for war crimes - a heartfelt desire of my own - doesn’t trump his rights under that same Constitution.
I suppose Guantanamo is out, then. But what if an international war crimes tribunal found him guilty, then? Could Abu Ghraib be too much to hope for?
First things first: Who is to bell the cat? No U.S. authority will ever arrest W, nor allow foreign officers to do so within our borders. Yet another reason the U.S. should be signatory to the International Criminal Court. (Obama, take note!)
Methinks Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfie, Feith, etc. will enjoy uninterrupted freedom for the rest of their lives. But I also suspect that their choice of foreign travel destinations may be somewhat limited.
I’d prefer we remain focused on winning the presidency for the next few months. We do not have a veto-proof majority in Congress and likely won’t for many years. The sight of a Democratic congressional caucus in turmoil will do nothing to convince swing voters that Democrats are capable of good governance. Our chances of winning the White House could be spoiled, not to mention the odds of gaining congressional seats.
Granting your highly questionable premise for the sake of argument, the puppeteer is a greater concern than the puppet. Getting Obama in instead of McCain will make a far greater difference than exchanging Pelosi for… who? Hoyer?
Goodness! A disparaging nickname! That proves it! Never mind that of the “6 for '06” agenda, four items were enacted in the first session of the new Congress: the miminum-wage increase, implementation of 9/11 Commission recommendations, college cost reductions, and a comprehensive energy bill. A measure to support stem cell research passed but was vetoed. Ethics and lobbying rules received the biggest overhaul since Watergate,
Yeah, I know, minimum wage and Social Security and such don’t score any points with libertarians, but they mean something to us liberals.
MAYBE? Do you really, sincerely, believe that impeachment might be in reach or well-advised? If so, I don’t know what else to say. If not, then you and I agree that the central premise of the OP is deeply flawed.
Not now, no. Starting hearings and investigations to find the evidence that would make impeachment a no-brainer to the general public would have been effective if it had been done in 2007, after the Democrats took the majority in the House.
It’s so incredibly obvious that Bush and his administration have performed probably hundreds of illegal actions since they took office that actually investigating, with an impeachment inquiry to power things so the White House couldn’t claim executive privilege on anything, would have turned up incontrovertible evidence, in the face of which the Senate Republicans wouldn’t dare have acquitted.
But instead, impeachment was taken off the table by the House leadership and we’ve dilly-dallied our way to 2008 with no action outside of some sternly worded letters to various executive branch bureaus who never had any intention of actually doing anything to answer them.
It’s claimed that the treaty, as is, is legal under the US Constitution.
*US Senators have suggested that the treaty could not be ratified without a constitutional amendment. Others have commented that it violates international law, that it is a political court without appeal, that it denies fundamental American human rights, denies the authority of the United Nations, and denies US national sovereignty. (see above for details and citations)
*
In any case, the war in Iraq is not prosecutable under that body of law:
On 10 February 2006, the Prosecutor published a letter responding to complaints he had received concerning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[114] He noted that “the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal”, and that the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the actions of nationals of states parties.14] He concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that a limited number of war crimes had been committed in Iraq, but that the crimes allegedly committed by nationals of states parties did not appear to meet the required gravity threshold for an ICC investigation.[66]
GWB really hasn’t commited “Crimes Against Humanity”.
Instituting a policy of torture, and providing such lax supervision that ~25 people died under torture, doesn’t count, I guess.
Was it just me, or did anyone else hear a (possibly ex-)general on NPR say that the question isn’t whether Bush has committed any war crimes, but if he will be prosecuted for them?
General Antonio Tabuga, who was the officer investigating the Abu Ghraib tortures.
Well, either you and BrainGlutton think that the International Criminal Court is worth a damn or it isn’t. If it is, they have given their opinion that GWB has not commited any crimes that can be prosecuted by their Court. Morally and ethically I agree he’s gone beyond the pale, but not Legally. Like it or not.
Based on your cites, they haven’t issued an opinion that nothing Bush has done rises to the level of a war crime. They’ve only looked at Iraq.
Bush insists he’s winning the war. The Democrats don’t run on his criminality, but on pulling out of Iraq–which looks to me mostly like giving Moqtada a chance to win a civil war. Which side is “committing suicide” depends on your prejudices.
At least they should do committee investigations. There are people on this board insisting that Bush broke no laws. A failure to impeach is an implicit concession that there is nothing impeachable.
Yeah? They’re going to retake the White House. Do they have any plans after that? My definition of “long-term” is not something that ends in the next election cycle. And a better goal in a two-party state is standing for rule of law.
The electorate with a massive loss of GOP numbers in the last several years? That electorate? The country was 50-50 after eight tiresome years of Clinton. It got to be more like 70-30 after six frightening years of Bush. If McCain is doing well now, it’s because the Democrats are proving they also are vapid.
We don’t need him convicted so much as we need an effort. Failure even to begin proceedings says that the President can break the law & never be challenged by Congress.
Again, impeachment does not necessarily mean removal. I want Bush to have as big a black mark as WJC, even if he’s not removed. I’d settle for censure & loss of pension. I want a clear commitment to the idea that the POTUS is not above the law. And I think it’s quite clear by now that Pelosi desperately does not want to the be the first SotH to ascend to the WH.
Well, then, the Framers were wrong. I suppose I will have to advocate for amending the Constitution to give us a proper parliamentary system, with votes of no confidence possible.