Can Bush be tried as a war criminal after he leaves the presidency?

Assuming this lunatic can be pried out of the White House when his term is up, can he be arrested and charged with committing war crimes? Not to mention illegally wire tapping Americans, ignoring laws passed by congress, and the countless other crimes committed by him and the thugs around him. This also assumes that the next president is a Democrat and doesn't pardon him.

Anyone know?

Although we're not a member of the ICC he wouldn't necessarily be off the hook.

Nuremburg was formed spontaneously to address Nazi war crimes. No reason why it couldn't be done again.

after the war. One would assume they were out of office/power at that time.

Don't think there is any requirement about holding office at the time of being charged and held for trial. Seems the only requirement is proof that one is responsible for war crimes and the willingness of others to prosecute.

there's no statute of limitations on murder. He's got a lot of em on his hands.

He will plead incompetence, he'll claim it was poor oversight of his underlings on his part, he will pin it on those who have served him loyally, but he will never take ANY RESPONSIBILITY for his actions, and in the end, he'll probably get off.

Unless he never leaves the United States again.

I think he could be tried either in a US court or by a UN court or by a court in any other nation (in absentia).

Didn't Canada recently (before Harper) charge * with war crimes?

An international tribunal indicted Slobodan Milosevic while he was still President of Yugoslavia.

There is no reason not to convene a special tribunal and indict Bush, Cheney and several of their aides, past and present, now.

If there is going to be an investigation, it's going to be afterwards. Keep in mind that Henry Kissinger will probably die of old age despite everything...

Taylor was captured and has been charged after he stepped down.

;)

There are bigger things that matter. Let this fucker fade into oblivion, and let's use our energy to start cleaning up the mess he's making.

Fuck him. He's already going down as the worst President in history, and he's completely done in the vaunted "Bush Family Legacy," so he's served some good purpose.

with everything this miserable swine pulled while in office.

The point is to punish, and if you don't know anything about how those laws work, you are really wasting your time even thinking about it.

Ever hear of Vietnam? Think those Presidents were tried as "war criminals"?

Give me a break.

and then you'll have some information.

Otherwise, you're just wasting time.

11 Nazis were hanged in 1947 for starting a "war of aggression". Sound familiar?

http://www.bringhonorback.org

That's some research on the War Crimes laws.

I'm backing you up all the way on this one, and look forward to the successful completion of your valiant effort.

Good luck.

You might want to watch "Judgment At Nuremberg," too. And don't forget Adolph E. He was a classic, don't you think?

Pardons would thwart the purpose of the Anti-Torture Act and the UN Convention it enables. Please see, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/24/13644/9576

If we don't try him, someone else will. Better us.

I'm watching all this going on about "war crimes," and I've yet to see anyone define what a war crime is and how that particular law - anyone going to do the research, hmmm? - is applied to Fuckface.

Talk, talk, talk, when there are so many other things to do.

Pardons are absolute and part of our Constitution, but, they have nothing to do with whatever "war crimes" people are talking about here.

I'm thinking of "Judgment At Nuremberg," and what a brilliant film that was. What a cast.

Jeez, check out what "jurisdiction" means before you get all worked up over someone's blog.

Information. It sets us all free.

on my article at DKos, which says that presidential pardons, in effect, have no effect on violations of the UN Convention Against Torture.

If the US won't try those responsible for Abu Ghraib at the top of the chain of command, then the rest of the world is obligated to do so. Therefore, I argue, it would best serve the interests of justice if we were to do so, regardless of any pardons that might be granted.

I have no need to read your article, then.

You should probably get that prosecution started as quickly as possible. Perhaps you can also posthumously include Nixon and LBJ and others - don't forget Kissinger - so that you can also take care of the "war crimes" committed during the Vietnam era, which, by the way, was much worse than Iraq.

Best of luck to you.

Are you okay? I've never seen you dismissive or aggressive.

- Mark

You've never seen me.

You know, it's a message board, not a psychiatric clinic, don't you?

This is why we have the return to power of all the miscreants from the Nixon and Reagan/Bush administrations. They got a way with their crimes so it made it easy for them to come back and do more of the same. This time there should be orange jumpsuits for everyone and lots of hard time. It should make future crooks look in other places than politics for their marks.

He screws everything up, everything (except stealing elections and screwing people over). He'll have no more elections, except dog catcher, to which he will not be elected. He'll have no power so screwing people is out. What's left? His peace and well being...and...he'll screw that up too. "It's all everything," as George Clinton says (or should have said;) The varieties of political expression, the paths to freedom, and real democracy for a first time...

We have a lot of work to do, that comes first. An ancillary benefit will be watching some special prosecutor go after * and his cohorts for years to come. It's good for lawyers, it's good for America, and meanwhile we'll do the hard work. I can't wait.

Look, I will offer no defense for the many deceits worked by chimpy and his pals, but you're dreaming if you think that he (or Cheney or Rumsfeld or any of them) are going to be tried as war criminals. Ain't gonna happen. First of all, too many other countries signed on in support of chimpy's war for them to make some big push. Second, I don't care if chimpy's approval rating drops to 2 percent, the American people will demand that whoever is running the government -- Democrats, repubs, whatever -- resist any effort by an "outside" entity to "judge" chimpy. Its just the way the American public is -- we sit in judgment of others, but no one sits in judgment of us except ourselves. And the country is, as OldLeftieLawyer suggests, not going to be in the mood for lots of recriminations; they're going to want to see forward thinking.

Not necessarily a satisfying result, but one that is virtually guaranteed.

onenote

* should be made to SUFFER -- and suffer badly!

He is personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis -- in the most brutal ways imaginable!

Including old people and little babies.

Never again -- NEVER AGAIN!

Good luck, and I'll be watching.

I take it you are an attorney.

I also take it that you don't share my passion for justice when it comes to *.

Isn't Ramsey Clark an attorney with a passion for Justice and Peace?

Perhaps he will begin a prosecution.

In his worst nightmares, where he's held captive by people with unfocused and uninformed rage?

I love Ramsey Clark. He's a damn fine man.

why * shouldn't be held accountable for his crimes.

I've heard every naysayer in the book on this, and being a lawyer I'm amazed you're so nonchalant about pursuing justice. The fact is he's a war criminal (it's a very focused concept, really). Turn him over to an international tribunal. Although it may take years, it will be done.

What's in it for me if I enlighten you at your request?

Hmmmm?

Being a lawyer, I know the law, and that might confound you. If you already know that he's a war criminal, I say you should get about the business of getting the matter taken care of.

So, what's in it for me to enlighten you?

what, you want to send me a bill for $250 an hour to back up your own rhetoric? That's rich...

:rofl:

You want what I have, and I get to decide how it gets exchanged.

$250?

No one works that cheap.

Besides, why did you think of money? I just asked what you'd give me. No money was mentioned, except by you.

I was under the impression that people posted information on DU for fun and as a public service, but if I'm going to be giving something away, I'd like to know your qualifications...any experience in international law? Diplomacy? International relations?

:shrug:

That's where we begin in accepting clients.

So, go ahead, and, no, I have a marble collection already, but thank you for using your imagination.

Like pulling teeth, I swear.........................

which is where solicitations for commercial services belong.

And FYI, I wouldn't bother filling out a credit report if an attorney doesn't have the experience and credentials. That's how I begin in hiring an attorney.

So, alas, we died aborning, you and I.

Now, go find out what you wanted to know in the first place.

And find out what a credit report is.

Watch those solicitations, too. You don't need work THAT badly, I'll bet.

I have yet to run into anyone on this board who is so unwilling to admit they really don't know a flying fuck about what they've gotten themselves into.

Best wishes.

Don't "fill out" the credit report, and you can keep your marbles.

Feel better, honey.

Why would anybody deter people from holding a criminal accountable?


To Naysayer: Stop with the "It's a distraction!".... that's such bulshit.

to start a campaign to prosecute? How do you know that? Is it in the law? Really?

Citizens have no rights?

I think you're just being lazy.

Ramsey Clark is an old friend of mine. He doesn't waste his time with nonsense like this. Research him, too.

Now, get going, and I'll be wishing you good luck.

if it's known that somebody committed a crime, particularly a very heinous crime, isn't there a moral obligation to prosecute that person?

You're confusing morality with the law.

They're not the same, although there's often an overlap in the eyes of some.

lawyers were to at least try to have some sort of moral standard.

that you understood English.

My response to you was direct, honest, intellectually accurate, and your gloss on it is insulting.

You asked, I replied, and you were rude.

Welcome to Ignoreland.

I read it as an honest opinion, and I saw no intent to insult you.

If anything was rude, it was your statement "And I was under the impression that you understood English."

Having said that, my guess is that you might be the only lawyer posting on this thread and since most of us don't have your knowledge or credentials, you might to try having more patience with us and when explaining a point of law.

Getting into pissing contests gets us nowhere. As the OP, I asked a question to which I still do not know the answer.

So could you please explain to me in layman's terms, can he or can't he be prosecuted?

(edited for missing word.)

I gave him a good answer, and his response - I don't care if you don't agree - was rude.

".. in spite of the jokes...."?

I choose not to deal with rude people, and I put him on Ignore.

And I don't work for free. It's a message board, not my law office. You could call a lawyer, make an appointmen, and get your answers, or you could research it yourself.

They asked you WHY he can't be prosecuted and you couldn't answer that question. You're a lawyer? No big deal! Unless you're Johnnie Cochran's ghost, people like you are a dime a dozen!

Inflated ego?

Gee, you sure do take a message board personally and go right to imaginary personal insults.

I am, of course, shattered by your assessment. I don't really know how I'll ever be able to go on. I fear it has all come to an end, simply because you have so perfectly captured the moment.

Johnnie Cochran is your idea of a lawyer?

So, you work for free?

Thanks for the laugh. Good luck.

is to show the world we're taking responsibility for our actions. Set an example. That includes punishing out own when necessary.

If we had done it at Abu Ghraib it would have been virtually a non-issue.

Many of the thugs and cutthroats involved with this administration are hold-overs from Reagan/Bush and the Iran/Contra debacle. Between the Bush pardons and fact that Lee Hamilton didn't pursue a complete and thorough investigation of these SOBs, no one was held accountable. So here we are going through it all over again, only much worse.

These murderous thugs need to be arrested, tried, and if found guilty, imprisoned.

like Nixon did.

that kid he used to BrokeBack with back when he was at Yale. It was Pickles' fault. If she hadn't killed her old boyfriend in that drunken car wreck, none of this would have happened.

It is easier to get away with major crimes than it is for little crimes.

Even if the Democrats miraculously win back the WH and Congress, I seriously doubt that they have the will to press these kind of charges, because it wouldn't be "nice".

into the 2008 elections. Let them know that they aren't going to mow over us again just because we have principles and they don't.

I am not responsible for any crime I commit while in office, it's the Democrats fault.

Signed,

Dubya

P.S. Al Gore and John Kerry really won, so it's their fault.