News @ ID Could you sue Dubya?

Discussion in 'News @ ID' started by junior_smith, Sep 27, 2004.

  1. junior_smith

    junior_smith Premium Member

    is it possile to sue Geoerge W. Bush?
    there are many cases so i will name but a few (if you have more plz add):
    -geneva convention violations (he was soo quick to blame saddam)
    - fraud; regarding the lies about the war in iraq and the misinformation
    etc.

    also he could be impeached:
    Article II Section. 4. (of the consitution)
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Clinton commited adultery and the republicans had his head.
    bush lied to billions and in the process had thousands killed, that is more of a 'high crime' than a 'misdemeanor'
     
  2. Icewolf

    Icewolf Premium Member

    From what I remember from mod studies unlike our country (britain)
    George is immune I think from criminal charges.
    Whereas Tony can be charged, if an internal inquiry finds he intentionally mislead us. (which there is documental proof of)
     
  3. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    A sitting president cannot be prosecuted criminally. The constitution, however, does allow for a president to be impeached and removed from office. In theory once he is no longer the sitting president, criminal charges can go forward. After Nixon resigned charges were expected, but Ford pardoned Nixon and thus ended chance of prosecution.

    Civil suits are a different matter. Until 1997 the courts had always favored the office and refused to hear civil matters against presidents - preferring to defer them until after they were out of office. But in 1997 SCOTUS ruled that a civil case against Clinton could go forward.

    What it comes down to in the case of Bush is that he asked congress for permission to go to war and they authorized it - thus giving him immunity for lack of a better word.
     
  4. pineappleupsidedown

    pineappleupsidedown Premium Member

    Clinton was not impeached for adultery. He was impeached for breaking his oath in court. Then the trial turned into being all about adultery, so he was not removed from office. That is what i got from it anyways.
     
  5. Cinderloft

    Cinderloft Premium Member

    I believe there are currently several petitions circulating around to impeach Bush. I think it has been done via PetitionOnline. It will not amount to much though, as he has contol of both the Senate and Congress, as well as hundreds of judges in the courts, including the Supreme Court. If put to a vote by the people, he would be impeached. However, if impeachment articles are brought to any of the government forums listed above, they would be shot down. Not to mention that when he leaves office, the incoming President can pardon him for any and everything that transgressed during his time in office. Is he untouchable? Theoretically, no, as no one is untouchable. Practically? Nothing will ever happen to him. So sad, but so unfortunately true.
     
  6. pineappleupsidedown

    pineappleupsidedown Premium Member

    I dont believe you can petition to get a president impeached. Only congress can impeach a president. And even then they have to have a specific thing to try and impeach him for. So if congress granted permission for his faults (some of them) they cant use those against him.

    Besides, its almost Nov, so whats the point? It takes awhile it the trial actually happens. And even if he does get impeached, will he actually be removed from office? Its never happened before, even when Andrew Johnson(who wasnt even elected, only became president after lincolns assaination) vetoed the civil rights act and overall went against what congress wanted.
     
  7. Bama8200

    Bama8200 New Member

    The problem would be within he was actually given data saying there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, GB has said they sent data saying it, so have a few other countries, so in turn the president would have the arguement that he was acting data the he recieved. He didn't make this stuff up it was given to him, he acted on what was given to him. so in a court because he acted on what was given to him a fraud case against him would never fly even if you could charge him.
     
  8. JcMinJapan

    JcMinJapan Premium Member

    True Bama.....

    Forget about whether it is setup or not and jsut looking at the facts, there was research for both. Now, fraud would be easily thrown out as there was evidence towards both ways and he made a decision. I am leaving all personal feeling out of this..... I refuse to give a stance... :frog:
     
  9. Bama8200

    Bama8200 New Member

    Yeah i wasn't saying how i felt although we all know how i fell. in a court, the legal issue would be there are 3 respectable countries that say they gave him intelligence saying there were WoMD. That would be where it would be thrown out. That would also be why the dem never even said a word about impeachment
     
  10. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    If we are asking the question "could someone sue (or impeach) Bush over the intelligence failures relating to WMD?" - then the answer would be no.

    As I noted before our Congressional leaders gave him the go-ahead. That little piece of paper effectively kills the issue.

    Right now I more disgusted with the performance of Congress on this issue for the simple reason that we know the Bush administration knew exactly what they wanted to do - what's Congress's excuse? They are briefed on intelligence matters separately. Why didn't they ask the same questions they are asking now?

    IMO they actually do approve of the war in Iraq, but criticize to reap benefits either way.

    Just my 2 cents.
     
  11. JcMinJapan

    JcMinJapan Premium Member

    True Bleys... Very true....

    Also, to add a bit more, the whole thing is a political game they all play. If someone voted no, then they would be outed as not backing the country in time of need and also not supporting our troops. So, did they really have a choice to vote for it or not? Especially with the war drums beating to a beat of 9-11? Politics is ugly and both sides stoop as low as they can to keep their jobs. Ok, I have offered no evidence, but I hate when politics takes a tragic event like 9-11 and they exploit for self gain. Basically, to me... this is what this whole election year is. The person to stoop the lowest will win.

    Sorry for the RANT, but since I am RANTING about EVERYONE, then it is ok!!! :yes: uh... :no: :puz: