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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.