Impeachment or War Crimes trial?

[Rockstone]

Maybe impeachment is irrelevant if they are brought up on war crimes charges? Lord knows they are guilty of them...

So maybe this is why impeachment is off the table...

[mike_c]

1. I believe impeachment would be necessary first unless...

...war crimes prosecution waits until after Bush leaves office. Ultimately, that is my hope-- that he is tried and convicted of crimes against humanity. America needs its own Spandau prison.

[itsmesgd]

2. off to The Hague with them all n/t

[theguvnorgc]

3. I like the Int'l Court of the Hague

Let the US and the rest of the world see a fair transparent process beyond our immediate control.... to the Hague with them, indeed!

[brazos121200]

7. Can the Hague try a person in absentia?

or do they have to be present in the dock?

[itsmesgd]

10. they've tried plenty of criminals in absentia

why do you think that Kissinger never leaves the country. We have quite a list of "people" that cannot leave the US because they will be grabbed and imprisoned. It looks like Rummy might join the list soon.

[Cleita]

11. From their website, I understand that sovereign nation has to

file a complaint for them to hear a case. Who will complain about the Bush Administration? Iraq could and actually we can, but will they? How about Canada? Could they file a complaint because our rogue government is so close to them?

[Jack Rabbit]

4. It's possible to have one without the other

But there's nothing wrong on insisting on both.

[alfredo]

5. Investigate to build a case before the world, then don't stand in the

way of war crimes trials.

[charlyvi]

6. They're not mutually exclusive.

In a perfect world, we would have both.

[cali]

8. but it's not a perfect world, and

the odds are heavily stacked against either.

[Selatius]

9. Impeachment is inherently too political. A war crimes trial is different.

I don't even think you could get more than a few Repubs in the Senate to vote to remove Bush or Cheney if you had gathered up all the evidence of wrongdoing. Repubs would simply say it's revenge for Clinton.

A war crimes indictment, on the other hand, is different, especially if it's brought by a court in another country, like Germany.

[90-percent]

12. my vote

Trial at the Hague for War Crimes.

Impeachment is for traffic violations and overdue library books, thanks to the standards the Newties set with the Clinton Witch Hunt.

-85% Jimmy

[Selatius]

13. We couldn't try him in the Hague.

We did not ratify the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court. They hold no jurisdiction over the US. Only a country with universal jurisdiction clauses in their national constitutions would be able to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity that occurred even outside their borders. Germany is one such country. Ironically, the US all but wrote Germany's current constitution at the end of WW2. This is why Rumsfeld won't go to Germany anymore because plaintiffs have initiated proceedings to prosecute Rumsfeld for war crimes in Iraq.