Support Investigation and Prosecution of Bush Adm. after they're out of office?

Idea#52

Stage: Active

Campaign: Issues: Domestic

If impeachment doesn't happen while President Bush and Vice President Cheney are in office, would you support Investigation into criminal activity after they are out of office? How would such a prosecution work?

Tags

Submitted by

Feedback Score

330 votes

Idea Details

Vote Activity (latest 20 votes)

  1. Agreed
  2. Disagreed
  3. Agreed
  4. Agreed
  5. Agreed
  6. Agreed
  7. Agreed
  8. Agreed
  9. Agreed
  10. Agreed
  11. Agreed
  12. Agreed
  13. Agreed
  14. Agreed
  15. Agreed
  16. Agreed
  17. Agreed
  18. Agreed
  19. Agreed
  20. Agreed
(latest 20 votes)

Similar Ideas [ 4 ]

Assessment

Comments

  1. Comment
    jmhmail

    What are the odds that if Barack Obama wins, George Bush pardons everyone in his administration, including Dick Cheney - and resigns one day before the end of his term so that newly-sworn in President for a day Dick Cheney can pardon former President Bush?

  2. Comment
    oedrex1

    Two words, Executive Immunity. He can't pardon himself but we won't be able to prosecute unless we remove EI through the impeachment process.

  3. Comment
    Nom de Net

    I would remove the "how would such a prosecution work?" follow-on question. Perhaps modify the question itself to a more inclusive "would you support investigation into criminal activity after they are out of office by either Congress, the DOJ or both?"

  4. Comment
    dwgelbman

    I believe Executive Immunity only applies to those acts carried out within the scope of a government official's duty. If we can establish that he acted OUTSIDE his constitutional authority EI may not apply.

    Also, the landmark case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), on EI (and most others) grants immunity from CIVIL liability. I don't know what test there has been as to CRIMINAL liability -- and perhaps we can find a way to serve that bastards up under International Law to some international tribunal under WAR crimes liability. I think a few sovereigns have had to answer for their deeds in such circumstances no? Or better still, we can create a NEW "military tribunal" ala Rumseld to take on the job. What's good for Guantanomo is good for the creator thereof no?

  5. Comment
    davism97

    Refer to "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Muder" by Vincent Bugliosi (http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/).

    In this book Bugliosi (the man who prosecuted Manson) lays out the legal framework for bringing Bush and his criminal administration to justice AFTER they leave office. He focuses on the lies and deceptions that led us into Iraq and claims that Bush can be held personally responsible for the deaths of our soldiers over there.

  6. Comment
    bojo1235

    Can we hold Clinton personally responsible for the deaths of soldiers who died under his adminstration? You know, like the

    ones who were not allowed to defend themselves, even though they were attacked?

  7. Comment
    cokane ( Idea Submitter )

    bojo1235: You obviously don't understand how the UN works, how peace-keeping missions work, or what international treaties are for (and why we abide by them). The point isn't merely that soldiers died, but that a considerable amount of misinformation was waged promoting war in Iraq to make it more favorable at the time, however less factual the accounts were. The fact is that a sovereign country was invaded, we diverted resources away from Afghanistan (prolonging war there), and started a 5-year war that was sold to us as a 1-year war. Whenever the administration was questioned on the validity of this claim, the questioners were repeatedly told that they were wrong and the administration knew best. This discredited the people who actually had it right to begin with, before the war in Iraq even started. This is all very well documented.

    Soldiers in peace-keeping missions who are killed are doing their job protecting civilians in a conflict zone. There is nothing illegal about this happening. In fact in both military and policing conflict, this is a common practice that is not illegal (sacrifice of military or police to safeguard civilian lives). So how do you hold someone responsible for something that isn't illegal? I challenge you to actually come up with real facts supporting the conflict in Kosovo or the Rwandan conflict as being "illegal". Both were sanctioned by the UN, and both saw international military sacrifice (not just USA).

Add your comment