Don't answer: He didn't lie. That is not what I'm asking. I'm asking: if we had conclusive proof that he and Cheney and the rest lied us into a war, should they face justice and be punished for having done that? Please explain.
2007-03-15 03:01:25 · 13 answers · asked by logan2012 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
They wanted war, before any of their false facts about Iraq were fabricated. We know that, at least.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html
2007-03-15 03:09:20 · update #1
Actually, it doesn't matter if he lied or not.
The UN charter is a treaty, and it essential forbids a war of aggression. In other words, pre-emptive war is a treaty violation.
Treaties, according to the United States Constitution, have Constitutional weight. In other words, the agreements with other nations have to be upheld by the executive with the same value as the Constitution.
As a result, the Iraq war essentially violated the UN charter, and by extension was a legal violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. It was intentionally set up this way to prevent wars of aggression amongst member states.
So, whether he lied or not is irrelivent. It only speaks to his character.
There's more than enough evidence for impeachment right now... but they're not doing it because the alternative to Bush is Dick Cheney...
Edit: Hmm.. how'd I know that I'd get a thumbs down for inserting facts into a political discussion...
2007-03-15 03:09:12 · answer #1 · answered by leftist1234 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Everyone has lied at some point in their life... the difference between us and politicians is, their lies destroy millions of lives all over the world. I think it would be wise to for everyone to step back and take a good look at our leaders today. But until someone has the balls to do anything about it, nothing will change, we will still get the same old "we'll settle" for a leader who doesn't care about anything. It all boils down to one thing $$$$$$$$$$
Why ask the question when you already know the answer? should they be impeached? probably!
Will they? No
Smedrik they are under oath : The Presidential Oath of Office
The oath to be taken by the president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will FAITHFULLY execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
2007-03-15 03:30:05 · answer #2 · answered by Laus 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
quite, no. despite if Bush's dishonesty approximately WMD, and so on. could be shown, technically it quite isn't a contravention of the regulation (he wasn't under oath on the subject, between different motives). yet he's in clearviolation of the form--and his oath of place of work to guard and guard the form--on severalcounts, which comprise torture of prisoners, denial of due technique and habeus courpus, and (from a criminal point of view, it extremely is maximum damning) kinfolk spying on regulation-abiding people with out warrents. those are actually not themes on which his guilt is uncertain--his very own public statements volume to a confession of having violated the regulation in procedures that for sure upward thrust to the constitutional standardof "intense crimes and misdemeanors." even in spite of the shown fact that, to no remember if he could be impeached, there are 2 different factors to contemplate. First, in prepare, the single that is working the Presidency isn't Bush yet Cheney--and if Bush have been to be impeached Cheney might replace into president. we would be worse off than we are actually--some distance worse. except Cheney have been impeached besides, there could be little think approximately forcing Bush out of the White domicile. the different factor is extra time-honored. Impeachment--and the two conviction or the forced resignations of Bush and Cheney--is a drastic step. the determination right it extremely is approximately what's in the perfect long-term hobbies of our united states of america. And mutually as i'm totally conscious those 2 richly should be dealt with because of the fact the criminals they are, i'm no longer confident that it extremely is the perfect for our united states of america. and that's what concerns--they are beside the point.
2016-10-02 04:06:41 · answer #3 · answered by kosmoski 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's a lot of evidence that they lied. All you have to do is watch a news channel other than FOX to hear about it.
Impeachment is unlikely to happen. It's a long process, and there will no doubt be significant legal wrangling and stalling. The odds of the impeachment process completing before they leave office anyway are slim to none.
If Bush and Cheny are impeached, the new president would have a very short time in office. Just long enough for the pundits to blame her party for the nation's problems, but not long enough to DO anything about them.
An impeachment would be a short term moral victory, but politically damaging for the Democrats.
2007-03-15 03:13:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
LOL - I expected bush supporters to still repeat "he didn't lie" - which doesn't answer the main theme of your question.
Seriously! You are asking a legal question and are not suggesting that he lied or not! Shows you how Bush supporters really dont' think at all eh?
To answer your question:
If there was proof of intent to go to war before lying about it, then yes...those are grounds of impeachment, but the intent itself is hard to prove.
If there was proof of intentionally fabricating false intelligence, or purposely changing intelligence to suit your political needs and presenting this to the UN, then that may be unethical...but it may not be grounds of impeachment - i don't know of any laws regarding that.
The fact that Bush secretly ordered the spying of millions of Americans was said to be unconstitutional by a Federal court...that is grounds for impeachment for he violated the bill of rights.
2007-03-15 03:38:26 · answer #5 · answered by Jerry H 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The standard is 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. If lying about this rises to that standard, they should be impeached.
However, impeachment is a long and complex process, and is unlikely to lead to any real charges. It would also consume all the time of the Senate, so nothing much else would get done.
Even if it is justified, is that what you want the Senate to spend its time on, or do you want them to concentrate on policy issues?
2007-03-15 03:53:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. And even if this lie were insufficient in itself for impeachment, other crimes linked to it by implication (e.g. - illegal use of Treasury funds) would surface, solidifying the grounds.
2007-03-15 06:04:29 · answer #7 · answered by Dilettante 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and for the same reasons, Penis Clinton and Ali Gore should have been impeached, and should face justice.
2007-03-15 03:06:07 · answer #8 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes, and every member of Congress that voted yes. Their job is oversight, and if your assumption is correct, then Congress is guilty also of dereliction of duty.
2007-03-15 03:09:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Firstly you would have to prove that they lied, which cannot be done. Also Lying isn't a crime, unless you lie under oath, which they did not.
2007-03-15 03:05:15 · answer #10 · answered by smedrik 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋