BTW, we shouldn’t derail this thread by talking about impeachment anyway. The OP is specifically asking about illegal acts as opposed to impeachable acts.
To find if something illegal was done, it is reckless to ignore new evidence that continues to surface to show that “false pretences” was a very likely thing.
BTW my timeline sensors are tingling again:
It seems you are assuming democrats had the downing street evidence early, that was not the case, the memos appeared on 2005, the congress findings came out in 2004, just a piece of the emerging evidence showing false presences.
False pretenses. I mean…
This has been done to death.
A: There is no crime here, in the sense of a criminal violation that a grabd jury could indict and a petit jury convict the President.
B: Impeachment could be done anyway. If the House decides to impeach the President for wearing ugly ties, nothing can stop them.
By signing (or ratifying) a Treaty, a national governing body like Congress is actually ceding some sovereignty on those specific issues covered by the Treaty in a strict legal de jure sense (the 1957 Treaty of Rome is the clearest example of this). In this particular case, there is no doubt that the US/UK’s direct military action against another sovereign state (in both Serbia and Iraq), without either UNSC approval or clearly in self defence of an imminent armed attack, contravened the UN Charter which both Congress and Parliament ratified. Again, it was illegal from a strict de jure standpoint.
But the whole point is so what? Who cares if I break a law if there’s no actual consequences? It is the de facto, not de jure perspective which really matters. The only way the UN Charter will become more than a piece of paper is if its most powerful members agree on negative consequences for ignoring it (eg. via the World Bank). Otherwise, as Hobbes might say, “Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words”.
The bombing of Serbia was not an attack on sovereignty. That’s the key word here, sovereignty. The Charter does not forbid all aggressive action, it forbids the deposition of other governments. You’re allowed to bomb sometimes but you’re NOT allowed to take over another government. I’ve tried to clarify this distinction a million times around here. Clinton did not ever try to depose another government and THAT (not aggressive action per se) is the crime that Bush is guilty of.
(And, incidentally, I’d like to see a motion carried that automatically granted UNSC authorization for military action in response to clear evidence of a time-sensitive humanitarian crisis such as genocide. This clearly was the case in Kosovo after Racak, but wasn’t at all the case in Iraq where the situation hadn’t changed for years. Any nation arguing such a case on flimsy evidence could then be sanctioned retroactively, while genuine crises could be addressed in a far more timely manner.)
Any treaty ratified by Congress has the same legal authority as a Constitutional Amendment under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. Congress ratified a treaty in which they agreed not to attack the sovereigny of another country unless it was in self-defense. If they didn’t want to abide by that agreement, they shouldn’t have signed it.
US law is irrelevant anyway. You might as well say that the Nazis weren’t guilty of any war crimes because killing Jews was legal under German law. It’s a bullshit argument.
Only in self defence, without explicit SC approval. Of course, I’d like to see this changed, but there is simply no provision in the Charter for actions like Kosovo to be legal according to the Charter - they must be approved by the UNSC first (and they weren’t).
Right, but I don’t think the knee=jerk GW defenders will go along with this. I haven’t seen it yet in this thread but I’m sure it will arise if the thread lasts very long.
“That’s water under the bridge. We’re in Iraq and we must concentrate on winning there and not harp on how we got there.”
I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time so it ought to be possible to cope with the present situation while still holding people responsible for past actions. Under the “that’s over, it’s the future that we need to work on” idea, no one would ever be held to account for any wrong behavior. After all, “A trial of her murderer won’t bring Aunt Minnie back. What we have to do now is concentrate on winding up her affairs in the best way.”
So, the US could re-institute slavery by the president signing and the Senate approving a treaty that require the US to do so? Is that correct? That would stand up in the Supreme Court?
I don’t know, maybe, but it’s a stupid comparison. The UN Charter doesn’t contradict any preexisting US law or violate the civil rights of its citizens. It doesn’t have anything to do with who has the power to declare war, it’s just an agreement by the US in toto that they will refrain from using those powers except for specifically proscribed circumstances.
Should the US honor its own treaties, yes or no?
Incidentally, the Charter doesn’t even say you can’t declare war, it says you can’t try to overthrow other governments. Let’s remember that distinction.
It’s a very valid question. You are asserting that a treaty can trump all US laws and constitutional requirements. John Mace is asking you if there are any limits at all on that power? If there are not, Congress can effectively amend the Constitution without ever involving the states. Is that your claim?
If it changes the constitution, then it does violate the rights of US citizens.
Yes, as long as they don’t violate the constitution. If they do, then the constiution should take precedence.
I know my example was whacky, and very unlikely to happen. But pick something less whacky, like elimating the age requirement for presidents because we signed a treaty that committed us to end age discrimination.
Consider this from the perspective of the House of Representatives. If they impeach Bush for violating the UN Charter, without any identifiable criminal act, then they are minimizing their own importance. They would be saying that a declaration of war, authorized by Congress, is less important than a treaty which the House itself never voted on. Even with Democrats in control, it’s unlikely that they’d be willing to deny their own authority like that.
That said, it is a crime to lie to Congress. Of course, you have to prove that Bush was lying, not just misinformed.
Is it? Or is it a crime to lie under oath?
No small task.
The only case I could find that deals with the reach of the treaty making power was Missouri v Holland (1920)
I’m not sure what activities not a proper subject of regulation given the right circumstances. I used to think it was fairly clear cut as to what was out of bounds but now I’m no longer all that clear on it. Obviously, though, if someone thinks that a treaty improperly infringes on the constituion, a suit against the President, or Secretary of State, or whomever, can be brought and the Supreme Court will decide.
David: AFAIK, the SCOTUS has not ruled on whether a treaty can supercede the constitution. I think there was one case where the court opined about it (in the negative), but it wasn’t part of the actual binding decision. I’m basing my argument on what I think the court would do if they had to rule on that subject. I just can’t see that the court would rule in the affirmative, for the very reasons I listed above-- it creates a back door method of amending the constitution with no input from either the House of the State Legislatures.