|
with the power to impeach and remove him from office, though. That's different. I think the general rule is that the President must be removed from office before he can be subject to criminal proceedings. (I think a case can be filed, but he cannot be forced to appear, and cannot be arrested.) After he's out of office--by impeachment or his term ended--there is no question and he (and the VP--and, of course, others in the regime) can be prosecuted for crimes committed in office. Whether it was a crime "committed in the commission of his duties" (and thus forgivable??) I don't think is relevant to his criminal liability, but if it is, it would be up to the court to decide that. To put an extreme case, say the President strangled someone to death in the Oval Office, and later claimed that that person had been a "threat to national security" (but what had really happened was the person was a political threat). It would have to be proven whether that was, or was not, the case (that the person was an imminent threat to the nation)--and, even then, there are lawful processes to deal with such a threat. Self-defense (the President was physically attacked) would be the only excuse, and even that has to go to court, in the case of someone's death. A person does not (or should not!) lose his right to live because the President says so (or he kills someone himself). Extend that thought to those under his command. Has he ordered people to be killed (or tortured to death), without any trial or chance to defend themselves--say, at Guantanamo Bay, at Abu Ghraib, by the military or by mercenaries in Iraq or Afghanistan (or elsewhere in the world)? And what of the million innocents he ordered to be slaughtered in Iraq? Is that forgivable, and not a crime, because HE says so (claims it was part of his "duty")? That defense did not hold up at Nuremberg. A crime is a crime--no matter who claims "authority" to commit it with impunity.
The tricky part, in that case, is the Iraq War Resolution. Did Congress authorize him to slaughter all those people? Congress DOES have the legal authority to declare war. Did they? And if Congress, as the branch of government which actually holds the power to declare war--i.e., authorize mass death--is guilty of giving that power away to Bush/Cheney, who then commit war crimes, how are THEY (Congress members) held responsible, especially given the non-transparent, 'trade secret' vote counting system we now have, by their act (in the same month as the IWR--Oct 02), with the 'trade secret' code owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls? Sticky problem. Thomas Jefferson would have said that revolution is the answer to that one.
Right now, I can't remember the upshot of discussions or rulings during the Ken Starr witchhunt against Bill Clinton. I seem to recall that there was a civil suit filed against Clinton while he was President (Paula Jones?)--and I remember something about how, if there had been a civil judgment, it would not be enforceable until he was out of office. Ken Starr, for his part, could not compel Clinton's testimony (Clinton testified voluntarily), until he was out of office; and, since his purpose was to smear and disable, not to prosecute, he gave the matter over to Congress, to first impeach and remove him from office. But Clinton's offense was so minor--telling a "white lie" about a sex act--Congress did not impeach and remove him. IF his offense had been a "high crime and misdemeanor," and he HAD been impeached and removed, THEN and only then Ken Starr could have successfully prosecuted him. An ex-President has only the rights of an ordinary citizen--such as they are, after Bush--and this goddamned, traitorous Congress. Conceivably, right now, Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton (and of course any of the rest of us schmucks) could be arrested, held indefinitely without trial, tortured and even killed--on the word of George Bush. Only public opinion stands in the way of it. And, if you are an unpowerful citizen, YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE AGAINST IT, not even public opinion, because the public will never know that you are gone. That is how far our rights have been eroded.
But, hey, if we were to somehow elect a President with the balls to do it, the suspension of habeas corpus might work in favor of justice, with regard to Bush, Cheney and a few others. Just friggin lock 'em up, as a menace to humanity--and throw away the key. (Just kidding. I want habeas corpus restored, no further fascist abuse in our legal system.)
I haven't read Bugliosi's book--he probably discusses this--but I think criminal proceedings COULD be started while Bush and Cheney are in office, but they cannot be forced to appear, cannot be compelled to testify and cannot be arrested, until they are out of office. And, whatever the upshot of such efforts here in the U.S., there are other venues, in other countries--countries that might well welcome war crimes prosecutions of these fascists--to curb the Bushites' free travel around the world. For instance, I can conceive of their being banned throughout South America, because extradition orders have been issued, or they have been tried and convicted in absentia. It could also happen in Europe. Middle Eastern countries aren't democratic enough for this to happen, but it would be a supremely lovely irony if Iraq actually manages to create a democratic system, and ends up trying and convicting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, for war crimes.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
