Will any Bush Admin members face criminal charges?

[BrainGlutton]

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.

[Don26]

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

[John_Mace]

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

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Don26]
They certainly will, that is, IF they actually commit crimes.
[/QUOTE]

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.:

Perhaps the most unexpected charges of war crimes have come from within the military and other parts of the national security bureaucracy. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s top aide, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, told CNN late last year that the United States has practiced torture and that “there’s no question in my mind where the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to do so originated–in the Vice President of the United States’ office.” Asked by the BBC whether Cheney was guilty of a war crime, Wilkerson said the Vice President’s actions were certainly a domestic crime and, he would suspect, “an international crime as well.”

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.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
The answer is the same as the last time we did this: No.
[/QUOTE]

Referring to any particular thread?

[alphaboi867]

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.

[Don26]

[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Don26]
Meh. Even Clinton, who rented rooms of the White House out, and did pardon some people on very questionable reasoning didn’t do that.
[/QUOTE]

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

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Don26]
Meh. Even Clinton, who rented rooms of the White House out, and did pardon some people on very questionable reasoning didn’t do that.
[/QUOTE]
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.

[Don26]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
But Bush’s daddy did; recall the famous Christmas Pardons.

[/QUOTE]

Cite?

[E.Thorp]

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

NY Times article on Bush pardons

[rjung]

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Has not the whole country learned by now that Clinton is an honest man compared to his successor?
[/QUOTE]

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

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
But Bush’s daddy did; recall the famous Christmas Pardons. My only question is, can a President pardon himself ?
[/quote]

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

Another issue raised by the conviction of a sitting president is pardon. Can the president pardon himself? Once again, there is no clear answer in the Constitution. Amar says a sitting president cannot pardon himself; ex-White House counsel John Dean says, in effect, “why not?”

While no president has ever pardoned himself, the law supports the president's authority to do so. Scholarly inquiry into the subject was provoked first by fear that Richard Nixon would pardon himself to escape Watergate; later by thought that George H. W. Bush would do so because of the Iran-Contra grand jury; and most recently by concern about Bill Clinton's problem of a possible post-Presidency indictment and trial. And while a few scholars have concluded that the president cannot pardon himself, many more believe that he can.

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.

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.

[RedFury]

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.

Initial Complaint

Charging
George Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, James Baker,
Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell,
Norman Schwarzkopf and Others to be named

With

Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against
Humanity and Other Criminal Acts and High Crimes in
Violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
International Law, the Constitution of the United States
and Laws made in Pursuance Thereof.

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

Despite their mild protestations to the contrary, U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go. And their decision not to use either “self-defense” or violation of the UN resolution as a justification for invading Iraq is an implicit acknowledgment of that illegality.

The no-fly zones were unilaterally established by the U.S. government after the Persian Gulf War, supposedly to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. There was one big problem, however: The United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones to be established.

<snip>

Several years ago, the U.S. government knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately imposed an illegal embargo against Nicaragua. The case reached the World Court, which ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States. As part of its judgment, the World Court awarded reparations to Nicaragua.

That official court judgment is still outstanding and remains unsatisfied. The U.S. government has continually refused to comply with the judgment and has even blocked attempts of the UN Security Council to enforce it.

Bolding mine.

[Don26]

[QUOTE=RedFury]

*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
.
[/QUOTE]

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

[choie]

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:

From Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

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.

[RedFury]

[QUOTE=Don26]
Yeah, we should have let Saddam slaughter his citizens, they had it coming, you know, for being Kurds and or Shia…
[/QUOTE]

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?

[Frank]

@Airman Doors

Very few leaders of nations are ever prosecuted for any crimes after they leave office.

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.

[QUOTE=Don26]
Yeah, we should have let Saddam slaughter his citizens, they had it coming, you know, for being Kurds and or Shia…
[/QUOTE]

When do we invade Zimbabwe?

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Frank]
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.
[/quote]
No cite either, but I’ve heard the same.

[QUOTE=Frank]
When do we invade Zimbabwe?
[/QUOTE]
When large amounts of oil are found there, and the local dictator proves unwilling to suck up to us, of course.

[RedFury]

[QUOTE=Frank]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Is Henry Kissinger a War Criminal?

Thirty years after the death of Charles Horman inspired a bestseller and an Oscar-winning movie, his widow still pursues those she believes are really to blame – including the former U.S. secretary of state. It’s one reason the quest for international justice makes the United States so nervous.

<snip>

“There’s no way around him,” she says. “He is the most responsible person for the behavior of the U.S. government in Chile at that time. He needs to be put on trial.”

A few years ago, that would have seemed wildly improbable. The armor of sovereign immunity protected all officials from the acts they committed on government service, no matter how unsavory.

But the 1998 arrest of the man behind the coup, Gen. Pinochet, has knocked a gaping hole in that armor Since then, a posse of victims, human-rights activists and crusading prosecutors has tried to apply this “Pinochet precedent” to others accused of mass killing, torture, abduction and war crimes.

Mr. Kissinger is their biggest quarry yet, and they are getting closer all the time. Now, prosecutors in Chile, Argentina, Spain and France want him to testify about what happened in Chile. Last month, a Chilean judge staged a re-enactment of the Horman killing at Santiago’s National Stadium, and now wants Mr. Kissinger at least to answer written questions about U.S. involvement in the coup.

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