for the treasonous acts committed against America by he and his administration?
or should he be immune to the laws of the United States?
2006-11-06 09:38:18 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
to the hague and take his minions with him.
2006-11-06 09:40:32 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He's not any more immune to the laws of the United States than was President Clinton, oh, I forgot, he was immune. The problem with your question is there has to have been a law broken in the first place.
2006-11-06 09:40:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Allow me to educate you with the voice of reason and common sense...
Why would anyone bring charges against Bush?
First off, since when has liberating oppressed people and attempting to offer democracy and civil liberties a crime? (NEVER)
Second, since when has an American president been held accountable for any unpopular action that was fully supported by a majority congressional vote, as the invasion to liberate Iraq was? (NEVER)
Stop your whiney liberal belly-aching with such ludicrous accusations. If you disagree with the Bush Administration, just say so without making crap up and vote tomorrow. Everything else is just "diarrhea of the mouth"!
2006-11-06 09:45:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
How quickly human beings forget. back while the in all probability of conflict in Iraq replaced into increasing, the communicate replaced into never on regardless of if or no longer Iraq had WMDs. almost each and every u . s . a . interior the worldwide replaced into in settlement that Iraq did. the communicate replaced into on regardless of if or no longer persisted inspections might get the interest achieved to find them. The international places against the conflict have been against it because of the fact they felt that protection tension action replaced into no longer mandatory. They felt that inspections have been working and can prevail to find the WMDs in question. nicely that and that they have got been all getting paychecks from Saddam's exploitation of the oil for nutrition application, yet this could nicely be an entire distinctive subject count. a greater physically powerful question is that if Iraq no longer had any WMDs why did no longer cooperate greater and push for swifter inspections to get it over with and get sanctions lifted. particularly they persisted to push back and intervene with inspections. except Saddam basically needed human beings to think of that Iraq nevertheless had WMDs with the intention to supply himself the sensation of greater capacity.
2016-10-15 11:09:55 · answer #4 · answered by blanga 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is not immune but it would set a very intresting precident. Past practice has been for elected presidents to grant pardons to thier previous counterparts. It might be more difficult to pardon this one.
2006-11-06 09:42:58 · answer #5 · answered by Kenneth H 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Another question,void of evidence,against our president.You should be brought up on treason charges,commie.
2006-11-06 09:44:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No charges should not be brought against the President. He hasn't done anything illegal.
2006-11-06 09:42:41 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Simply state the crimes he has commited and if they can be supported (remember, the prosecution bears the burden of proof), then he shall be tried
2006-11-06 09:41:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think that he should be brought to court, but not just because the crime he commited against US, but wider,
2006-11-06 09:39:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why hasn't someone thought of that before? I think it's a great ORIGINAL idea! Go for it!
**sarcasm**
2006-11-06 09:40:07 · answer #10 · answered by nbasuperdupe 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He has done nothing wrong. He has defended this country. Can you liberals move on? You started a website called moveon.org, try it.
2006-11-06 09:43:13 · answer #11 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋