Will any Bush Admin members face criminal charges?

Inspired by this article. I’m not proposing here to debate their guilt on any particular point, only whether things will ever get far enough for any of them to be haled into court, in the U.S. or abroad, before or after January 2009.

They certainly will, that is, IF they actually commit crimes.

The answer is the same as the last time we did this: No.

Please read the linked article beginning to end before you post again. Not trying to debate guilt, as I said; but there’s no question some of them have committed acts which might be crimes, or might not – that’s for the courts to decide if it ever gets that far. E.g.:

But he’s not guilty until a court of law says so, and even if Wilkerson is right about the facts, there are any number of defense theories Cheney might mount. If he’s ever brought before a court.

Referring to any particular thread?

All Bush has to do is sign a piece of paper by 11:59am January 20 2009 and nobody in his administration will see a day in court. Those who’ve already have will get a get out of jail free card.

Meh. Even Clinton, who rented rooms of the White House out, and did pardon some people on very questionable reasoning didn’t do that.

Has not the whole country learned by now that Clinton is an honest man compared to his successor?

But Bush’s daddy did; recall the famous Christmas Pardons. My only question is, can a President pardon himself ?

And to answer the OP, no. He and his are above the law, and will not be punished no matter what they did, short of being grabbed by some other country. And they’ll just avoid going to countries that will do that, without large heavily armed defending forces.

Cite?

List of people pardoned by George H.W. Bush, December 24, 1992

NY Times article on Bush pardons

Given that Bush is still managing to hang on to an approximate ~30% approval rating, I’d wager no, not yet.

That’s debatable, and has been addressed here without a definitive answer.

Very few leaders of nations are ever prosecuted for any crimes after they leave office. Those that have have almost without exception been on the losing end of a war or deposed by a coup. Counted among them are some of the worst despots in history, although it must also be said that most of them die in office and death confers an immunity of its own.

Likely not the best answer for a GD query, but many of them definitely should.

OTOH, there are some serious charges against some of their member in the International War Crimes Tribunal United States War Crimes Against Iraq.

Of course, what with the US not being a signatory* and all, I think their asses are well covered.

*Not that the US cares much about International Treaties, signed or not, when they rule against them. Couple of examples:

The Embarrassment and Illegality of the No-Fly Zones

<snip>

Bolding mine.

Yeah, we should have let Saddam slaughter his citizens, they had it coming, you know, for being Kurds and or Shia…

Just tossing this in here: the sole exception to a President’s ability to pardon – and it’s an important one – is someone who has been impeached:

So if (for example) Cheney were impeached, Bush’s hands would be tied. Probably ain’t gonna happen, although we – er, I mean, the Democrats – do have enough votes in the House to get the job done. (All that’s needed is a simple majority, i.e. 50% + 1.) But I’m too cynical to believe they’ll have the cajones to follow through.

Still, it’s an awfully nice thing to imagine over a warm cup of cocoa.

One Kool-Aid too many methinks.

The worst period of Saddam’s killing spree just so “happened” when the Reagan/Bush-I administrations were in control. Look up the Shiite bloodbath after they’d been promised backing by Bush the elder just after GW-I.

Secondly. you’re right, why let Saddam slaughter his citizens when it’s become quite evident that the US “coalition” and their dismantling of Iraq – for no valid/legal reason at all – can perform said task at a much more improved/efficient rate:

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

Impressive isn’t it? Another cupful?

I read quite recently (and now can’t find a reliable cite - it was in connection with the death of Pinochet) that Henry Kissinger avoids certain countries, just in case.

When do we invade Zimbabwe?

No cite either, but I’ve heard the same.

When large amounts of oil are found there, and the local dictator proves unwilling to suck up to us, of course.

Is Henry Kissinger a War Criminal?

Highlight mine. And yes, he does “happen” to stay away from those countries…