Should Presidents be liable for imprisonment for starting wars based off false evidence? (Al Gore, wage)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not like it would ever happen but do you think the President should be liable to be imprisoned if he starts a war that is clearly based off lies/false evidence? Take George Bush who blatantly lied about Saddam having nuclear weapons which he obviously knew he didn't had yet lied through his teeth the whole time. Would you like to see him put in the slammer for decades?
Should you be put in jail for lying about Bush claiming Saddam had nukes or should you just be sued for libel?
Not like it would ever happen but do you think the President should be liable to be imprisoned if he starts a war that is clearly based off lies/false evidence? Take George Bush who blatantly lied about Saddam having nuclear weapons which he obviously knew he didn't had yet lied through his teeth the whole time. Would you like to see him put in the slammer for decades?
Well.....
There is this thing, called the US Constitution, which prevents something like this.
A sitting President is not subject to prosecution by the Judicial Branch (courts) Separation of powers.
Only Congress can take action against the President via the impeachment.
Once out, it's unlikely the President could be prosecuted for decisions made while President especially in cases of war and especially when authorized by the US Congress which also bears responsibility.
In the case of Bush, there are three things that would prevent the prosecution that you advocate.
No proof exists that Bush actually knew there were no WMDs.
Almost the entire US Congress from both parties, also voted for the war. This includes Hillary Clinton. Do we prosecute her too?
The sitting president has the Constitutional privilege to grant a pardon and they almost assuredly would do this lest they be held to the same thing in the future. Obama has already indicated he would do this back when the Democrats had full control of Congress.
Not like it would ever happen but do you think the President should be liable to be imprisoned if he starts a war that is clearly based off lies/false evidence? Take George Bush who blatantly lied about Saddam having nuclear weapons which he obviously knew he didn't had yet lied through his teeth the whole time. Would you like to see him put in the slammer for decades?
I don't know which is worse: your premise, or your god-awful sentence structure. Reread your own penultimate sentence. Is the comma key broken on your keyboard?
Bush never even claimed that Saddam was in possession of "nuclear weapons." And he didn't lie about Saddam having WMDs in general. At the time, most people, including some of Saddam's own senior officers, believed that Saddam still had WMD capability socked away. See the quote from Abdullah Huwaysh, who was Saddam's minister of military industrialization. //www.city-data.com/forum/39094874-post1.html
Going by your handle, I'm going to guess that you were high as a kite on the wacky tobacky when you wrote this. Am I right?
Not like it would ever happen but do you think the President should be liable to be imprisoned if he starts a war that is clearly based off lies/false evidence? Take George Bush who blatantly lied about Saddam having nuclear weapons which he obviously knew he didn't had yet lied through his teeth the whole time. Would you like to see him put in the slammer for decades?
Clearly the answer is no. It is the Congress and ultimately the public's responsibility to weigh what the President says or doesn't say and to ultimately decide what actions are to be taken. In the case Iraq, the Congress voted overwhelmingly to grant President Bush the authority to act. The people in 2004 decided overwhelmingly to endorse the President's actions. That authority was granted despite the fact that there was ample evidence contrary to the case being made by the President.
If the President "lied," which I personally believe that he did at the time, then the proper course of action would have been to remove him from office as laid out by the Constitution. That is the sum total of what should be done in such a case. Nothing more and nothing less.
Not like it would ever happen but do you think the President should be liable to be imprisoned if he starts a war that is clearly based off lies/false evidence? Take George Bush who blatantly lied about Saddam having nuclear weapons which he obviously knew he didn't had yet lied through his teeth the whole time. Would you like to see him put in the slammer for decades?
What's wrong with you?
Even the most rabid lefties know that GWB didn't lie, but acted on the same evidence that Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Lugosi, and a host of others are on record as believing.
Since you missed it, look it up now instead of making yourself look foolish. Google is your friend.
Even the most rabid lefties know that GWB didn't lie, but acted on the same evidence that Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Lugosi, and a host of others are on record as believing.
Since you missed it, look it up now instead of making yourself look foolish. Google is your friend.
While you are correct on who voted for that war/wars..It's always been my belief that it was Dick Cheney who ran that campaign to allow GW to push for that war..even Colin Powell realized that..and resigned as soon as he could from his position...It's also been exposed that even prior to initiating any wars..that it was't until 9/11 did they see their opening...Unfortunately for the world their interferences and wars did that region become so destabilized!!
One must realize that in this age of universal communications that you are no longer in the bubble and some Political rhetorics no matter which side of the isle, just doesn't pass the smell test any more
Not like it would ever happen but do you think the President should be liable to be imprisoned if he starts a war that is clearly based off lies/false evidence? Take George Bush who blatantly lied about Saddam having nuclear weapons which he obviously knew he didn't had yet lied through his teeth the whole time. Would you like to see him put in the slammer for decades?
Interesting.
It certainly could have the potential to tear the nation apart putting someone like LBJ on trial for lying about the 2nd Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
Is it worth risking the division in the country putting LBJ on trial?
I am assuming that you would also be fine with putting Obama on trial for deceiving the American public to justify drone strikes or would be attacks on Syria and real attacks elsewhere?
Not like it would ever happen but do you think the President should be liable to be imprisoned if he starts a war that is clearly based off lies/false evidence? Take George Bush who blatantly lied about Saddam having nuclear weapons which he obviously knew he didn't had yet lied through his teeth the whole time. Would you like to see him put in the slammer for decades?
Liberal insanity-
1. Bush was relying upon the available intelligence at the time
2. The Congress and Senate, given the same information (including HillaryClinton) agreed with him.
3. Saddam had WMDs-
a. he gassed the Kurds
b. WMDs were transported to Syria
c. Those same WMDs from Iraq have been found in Syria
Blaming Bush only goes so far-it is a tired and false meme that has worn thin among those with an IQ above 80. Admit that your man Obama (and your 2016 champion Hillary) are pathological liars who have been discovered on many instances to be deceptive and working against the benefit of the US.
Admit the facts: Obama and Hillary are destructive pathological liars who have only thier own personal agendas at heart relative to policy that benefits the US. Hillary and Bill's net worth has gone from "being broke" to $600million by selling political favors which harms the average US citizen, yet benefits them. The Clintons and Obamas are carpet baggers, seeking only personal wealth at the expense of the nation.
See "The Curly Effect"; those who voted for Obama (and will, of course, vote for Hillary) are accelerating the demise of the US and have been deluded by glitzy slogans to the detriment of the nation.
Should Bill Clinton be held liable for 9-11 after ignoring the first World trade bombing as a NY Police matter or for not accepting Sudan's offer to turnover Bin Laden or now about all those democratic senate leadership who heard same intelligence reports as Bush and vote for the war? The truth is since the church Commission we have no human intelligence to check or the electronic wiz kid intelligence. As Saddam stated; he wanted the world to believe he still has WMDs to prevent Iran from attacking. What about Obama laugh that Russia under Putin was not a danger or his failed plan to withdraw troops from Iraq? In fact the mess he has created in strengthen ISIS hand in the region by his policies.
Yes. Martha Stewart got several months for lying about a stock sale, which hurt no one.
Tell that to the other shareholders.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
