Impeachment/Trial for War Crimes

[Ichisan]

Shouldn't Bush and senior members of his administration be put on trial for war crimes, just as they were going to do to Milosevic? How many people here think that ought to happen?

[riona]

I would support it, BUT...it's not going to happen.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

Never gonna happen and at this point, I don't really care.

[stsparky]

Would be cool if just after the inauguration, InterPol tricks Bush and Cheney onto International soil holding a trial there.

[farstrider]

Would be cool if just after the inauguration, InterPol tricks Bush and Cheney onto International soil holding a trial there.

Seconded.

It would be even cooler if, just after inauguration, Obama actually handed Bush and Cheney over to an international court.

[Anders]

You guys do realize what that would mean right? Even when "jr" is out of office, he will be a former President, a leader of this country. I despise the man, but the office is sacred to the stability of the government. Should we allow a foreign judicial body trump our own laws and put a leader of our country on trial? I say hell no.

I'd be content in knowing that when "jr" is driven off the White House property in his limo, he will be remembered as the President that started a war based on false evidence, and plunged the world into financial chaos. What a way to be remembered by future generations.

[blank slate]

Can we at least egg his limo when it leaves?

[h2orowe]

If Bush is guilty of any crimes that will/will not be tried against him, then he deserves any/all punishment he does. To let a man who has committed crimes go just because he was our president reflects poorly upon him, the justice system, and the country as a whole. If anything, one who commits crimes while in power should be outcast from society for taking advantage of not just their position, but the people who trust them.

[Plekto]

Do you think anyone will visit his library, read his books, want him to speak any place or god forbid, hire him for something?

He's going to be the biggest nobody in history in a couple of months.

[ruaidhri]

Do you like George W? I certainly don’t. I did not vote for him in 2000 or in 2004. I did not support invading Iraq. I did not support Congress’ passing or the President’s signing of the Patriot Act and I certainly did not support the injustices done under the Patriot Act’s authority.

But, America did elect George W. its President in 2000 and reelect him in 2004. The events of September 11, 2001 did happen and did change America’s relationship with the rest of the world. Americans did become more paranoid fearing terrorist attacks against our people and our country. We did suspend civil rights, capture and indefinitely hold suspected terrorists without trial at Guantánamo. Enough members of Congress did believe Iraq held weapons of mass destruction and did declare war with the support of a majority of Americans who likewise did support invading and occupying Iraq.

The bottom line is that a majority of Americans did support our government using just about any means to prevent another terrorist attack. Personally, I don’t believe George W. was the architect of all that evil. First, I don’t believe he was smart enough to have mastermind anything. Second, following September 11th, I believe most of the people in power were willing to believe just about anything could happen and reacted in a knee jerk fashion without knowing how to verify the threat while at the same time protecting us, the people.

This thread asks if Bush and senior members of his administration should be put on trial for war crimes? Well, just how far down do those that support this action believe indictments should flow? Should every member of Congress that voted for the war and authorized the invasion be indicted? How about those that voted for the patriot act? What about our men and women in uniform from Generals on down to privates? Should we allow them to be indicted also?

Consider the question Anders’ raised:

Should we allow a foreign judicial body to trump our own laws and put a leader of our country on trial?

I agree with Anders’ answer. Hell no!

[ミュー]

While I have never liked Bush, I don't see him as a criminal.

I utterly hate his style, but Americans voted him into office and he did his job in serving the United States. Politics is not pro wrestling, this whole good/evil bullshit is a false reality exacerbated by the media.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I'd support the idea of putting Bush and select members of his administration on trial (Or have "investigations" done) but probably not by a foreign body.

[qwert]

Of course not. Don't be daft. America shot itself in the foot.

[h2orowe]

Should we allow a foreign judicial body to trump our own laws and put a leader of our country on trial?

I agree with Anders’ answer. Hell no!
Not to compare the Bush administration to Nazi Germany, but if the whole world thought like that, well, no one would have even bothered with the Nuremberg trials.

Lying to the American public to start a war should be something he and his buddies are put in prison for. The fact that even one person died because of "lol WMDs. lol just kidding." is enough to call for punishment. The soldiers (well, at least the ones who didn't do anything fucked up) shouldn't be punished because they did something bad while being manipulated by the powers that be. To grant our politicians immunity from the crimes is just unjust. Not only is there the war in Iraq, but Bush and his team also messed up with Hurricane Katrina.

[Jetsetlemming]

A war crimes trial of the Bush administration would go nowhere and result in nothing but a huge media circus, millions wasted, and a huge embarrassment for the US.

[Plekto]

I think there will be indictments shortly. But not for Bush. Seeing Palin in action reinforced this belief(and also the movie W). He was a playboy doofus who was in way way over his head. So he basically surrounded himself by "experts" and failed to see that they had an agenda which they used him to promote.

Total puppet to their desires until the last few weeks, when he is finally just being himself(and pretty much enjoying the ride and goofing off as fits his personality).

The real people who managed it all are going to find themselves in court and I feel no qualms about it. We might not send our Presidents to prison, but Vice Presidents, cabinet members, and people who are supposedly civil servants(military, CIA, FBI, and so on) - they all have actual pending litigation right now that's just waiting for the second that they are out of power to be filed.

Cheney is an evil man. Rumsfield is as well. Rice deserves every day in prison that she gets, too. They all do.

[SlickWilly440]

There is not point in war crimes. I mean, it's a war, one should be able to do anything to the opposing side and get away with it.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I think the administration did worse during the Vietnam war.

Bush, himself, is not a war criminal. Cause' guess what? He ACTUALLY thought there were WMD's in Iraq even though there weren't any. Especially with Cheney and Rumsfeld pushing his buttons.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I think the administration did worse during the Vietnam war.

Bush, himself, is not a war criminal. Cause' guess what? He ACTUALLY thought there were WMD's in Iraq even though there weren't any. Especially with Cheney and Rumsfeld pushing his buttons.
This might be the case, and there is no way to really know for sure. Frankly though, when running for president Bush should have been aware of the term "The buck stops here." When you're the leader of a country you own up to the actions of those you have put in your administration, not point fingers. He's just as responsible as they are, perhaps even more so.

[Anders]

This might be the case, and there is no way to really know for sure.

That sounds like reasonable doubt to me.

Impeaching a President is just about the very worst thing we could do. Yes jr did some very nasty things, but to knock down the stability of the government at a time when the country is trying to prevent stagflation and recover would be a very bad thing. Again, his legacy will be remembered for all time. Due to his actions, his mark on history will not be favorable.

What I would really like to see is to have Karl Rove put on trial for treason for leaking that CIA agent's identity. That's a trial I would be very eager to watch.

[farstrider]

Bush, himself, is not a war criminal. Cause' guess what? He ACTUALLY thought there were WMD's in Iraq...

Hitler ACTUALLY thought Jews were inferior. I guess we shouldn't label him a war criminal, either...

As for putting a US president on trial being an embarrassment, blah, blah, blah... What makes America different from any other country who's leaders have been put on trial for war crimes? Oh yeah, the US is the biggest bully in the neighborhood... :rolleyes:

[Jetsetlemming]

Hitler ACTUALLY thought Jews were inferior. I guess we shouldn't label him a war criminal, either...

As for putting a US president on trial being an embarrassment, blah, blah, blah... What makes America different from any other country who's leaders have been put on trial for war crimes? Oh yeah, the US is the biggest bully in the neighborhood... :rolleyes:
There's a little bit of a difference between the War on Terror and the motherfucking Holocaust there, buddy.

[farstrider]

There's a little bit of a difference between the War on Terror and the motherfucking Holocaust there, buddy.

I'm not even talking about the ACTS that were committed, just commenting that they both BELIEVED what they were doing was appropriate, as Sock seems to be implying that holding a false belief can somehow make one less guilty.

[Beowulf]

That sounds like reasonable doubt to me.

Impeaching a President is just about the very worst thing we could do. Yes jr did some very nasty things, but to knock down the stability of the government at a time when the country is trying to prevent stagflation and recover would be a very bad thing. Again, his legacy will be remembered for all time. Due to his actions, his mark on history will not be favorable.

What I would really like to see is to have Karl Rove put on trial for treason for leaking that CIA agent's identity. That's a trial I would be very eager to watch.
Dude this country almost impeached Clinton for getting a goddamn blowjob.

But yeah the Karl Rove thing would be nice.

[Jetsetlemming]

I'm not even talking about the ACTS that were committed, just commenting that they both BELIEVED what they were doing was appropriate, as Sock seems to be implying that holding a false belief can somehow make one less guilty.
But it matters, because regardless of what Hitler believed, he was still exterminating defenseless civilians in genocide and Bush started a legal war. The difference is whether Bush LIED about the causes of that war, or if he told the truth to the best of his knowledge. If he actually LIED, THAT is a crime. If he did not, than it is not. With the previously stated info about British intelligence and the details exposed by the Vallery Plaim stuff, there's more than enough reasonable doubt that Bush did not willingly lie. In this case, holding a false belief absolutely makes one "less guilty".
If anyone is in fact calling for Bush's head because of the War in Iraq regardless of the actual details, they are idiots and/or terrorist sympathizers. :whoops:

[farstrider]

If anyone is in fact calling for Bush's head because of the War in Iraq regardless of the actual details, they are idiots and/or terrorist sympathizers. :whoops:

I just like a good lynching every now and then :D

Actually, I'm not that interested in the war W. started. I'm perfectly willing to chalk that up to ignorance. I would much rather see him answer for condoning the practice of torture.

Edit: Also, I love the term "legal war". "We're going to invade, overthrow your government, and then occupy your country indefinitely; and it's all perfectly legal. Why? Because we voted amongst ourselves and decided we don't like you ><"

[MNJetter]

But it matters, because regardless of what Hitler believed, he was still exterminating defenseless civilians in genocide and Bush started a legal war. The difference is whether Bush LIED about the causes of that war, or if he told the truth to the best of his knowledge. If he actually LIED, THAT is a crime. If he did not, than it is not. With the previously stated info about British intelligence and the details exposed by the Vallery Plaim stuff, there's more than enough reasonable doubt that Bush did not willingly lie. In this case, holding a false belief absolutely makes one "less guilty".
If anyone is in fact calling for Bush's head because of the War in Iraq regardless of the actual details, they are idiots and/or terrorist sympathizers.
If you think of it in terms of what a country thinks of its own actions, Hitler waged a legal war too. Pretty much everything he did was done through proper channels, at first through the government that existed pre-1933, and then afterwards by making up his own channels. Perfectly legal, as far as the German nation was concerned at the time.

I'm not trying to equate the holocaust to Iraq, just making a statement on the current analogy.

[Swede]

Without having read a single person's post in this thread, I say no. Mainly because what has happened has happened, and I don't see a trial for war crimes doing anything to actually improve the current situation. Let congress actually get some work done and start coming up with some solutions to the huge amount of problems we're facing, rather than get caught up in more partisan bullshit trying to further emphasize how horrible the Bush administration was.

[japanat]

Personally, I have hated the administration of the US for the last 8 years. But a trial/impeachment? Ne-e-v-er happen. Turn off the emotion, and use your critical faculties, please.

Did they lie? They have intelligence estimates, real intelligence estimates, that said that there were WMD in Iraq. Many in the intelligence community believed those weapons were there. Many also did not. What the Bush administration did was to use the intelligence estimates that supported their position, and ignore the others. Unethical? Yes. Potentially dangerous? Damned straight. A crime which could be successfully prosecuted? No.

Hurricane Katrina, an excuse for a trial? Jesus, folks, they fucked up royally, but how do you put them on trial for that? It's not like they were putting funds for rebuilding into their pockets. Bush's choice as FEMA director was a royal screwup, but that's the kind of thing that you fire someone for, not prosecute. Well, the Republicans were fired.

And if it ever went down to the wire, and grounds were found for prosecution; you do realize what would happen, don't you? Like Ford with Nixon, Obama would sacrifice his political future for the good of the country, and pardon Bush.

Any crimes committed in Iraq have to be addressed, of course: Abu Ghraib, the bombings of wedding parties, the marines who executed prisoners. These offenses have been hidden, sure, but they have been prosecuted when exposed. They also need to take a magnifying glass to these so-called 'contractors'. Now, there's a place where Cheney could be in trouble. And, if so, he would probably be treated just like Agnew, and hung out to dry.

And enough of the comparisons with Nazi Germany. Bush/Cheney didn't label people "units" and set about to systematically exterminate whole groups of people. Where are the warehouses of human hair, fillings, wallets and lampshades made from human skin?!? Study your fucking history and stop making these specious arguments, would you? It undermines your argument, and cheapens the loss of the folks who were killed in the Holocaust.

Oh, and re: Clinton's impeachment. I liked the guy, and felt that he was a decent president. But if he had just said, "Yes, I fucked her", or had said "That is a personal issue between Hillary and I", the impeachment never would have happened. He gave them grounds for impeachment when he lied under oath.

[stsparky]

They've broken plenty of laws. We should put them on trial.

[Campion]

Hitler ACTUALLY thought Jews were inferior. I guess we shouldn't label him a war criminal, either...

As for putting a US president on trial being an embarrassment, blah, blah, blah... What makes America different from any other country who's leaders have been put on trial for war crimes? Oh yeah, the US is the biggest bully in the neighborhood... :rolleyes:


Two things.

One: No-one was prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials for genocide. They were tried and found guilty for 'planning and waging an illegal war' (check out the court documents). So comparing the holocaust (which was never prosecuted as a genocide in the upper echelons of the Nazi Party at the time) to another action (which will never be prosecuted in the upper echelons of the Bush Administration) is kind of fatuous unless you are trying to be ironic.

Two: If the second Iraq War can be proved to be illegal then you can claim that Bush should be tried for his actions but if it is to be equivalent in any way to the WW2 trials then it must be held in America (Nuremberg is in Germany after all).

As for 'the biggest bully on the block' argument I don't see anyone in the Hague suggesting that they issue proceedings against the Chinese leadership, the Russian leadership or the British leadership for their crimes against humanity (and those countries listening), so why should America be any different?





Campion.

[geesehoward4life]

I voted yes to impeachment. I congrat Bush and his administration for learning from Nixon's mistakes. That is really the heart of all of this anyway. We cannot judge and detain others if we ourselves will not be judged and detained too. Maybe then people will stop abusing their power when they know they can be snatched just like the people they have had snatched.