will Bush get sued for his crimes????
 

well, let's face it - the guy's a war criminal, there's no doubt about it
what I want to know is can a US president be sued for his crimes after he steps down???

just curious

The real question is will Obama investigate Bushs war crimes. All signs point to no.

Probably not, but you'll never know.

If there is no doubt about it, then what does that say about all the US citizens who allowed him to stay in office? :2 cents:

Did you really ask this question? Answer is no

Let's make sure that what he did was a crime to begin with... or is this another cart before the horse thread?

how the hell does that work? Getting sued for your crimes... I thought people got prosecuted not sued...

Exactly...

He deserves more than getting sued. Life in prison would be more appropriate.

No he will not.

oj got sued

yeah but not for his crimes. it was a civil suit

which to me makes no sense, if he is not guilty of the crime, how can he be sued in civil court

Even Quantanamo Bay should be reason enough to lock up the guy for life.
In a fair world that is....

Its only a dream, but i'de love to see Obama investigate sept.11:2 cents:

If that happened, we could lynch the fucker not sue him.

If you still believe it's Bush who's behind everything, try this :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...29053600562261

if you can find the time, offcourse

Alex Jones will get you thinking, i'll say that.
But somethings are just way to obvious. I dodn't think GW was behind EVERYTHING, but I think he knew alot more on sept11 then most think.
The funny thing about the sept11 smoking gun(s) are everywhere.

BTW, to my recollection, GW pardoned himself and his people for any possible accusation of war crimes in 2006 i believe it was.

Why would an innocent man worry about what people might find out in the future?

It was a smart move.

It was a provision buried in another law. It was to prevent a partisan witch hunt. GWB was protecting himself against idiots who would go after him not because he committed crimes, but because they didn't like his policies.

Actually, idiots like...

If Obama does nothing against Bush you might as well replace Bush's face on your avatar with Obamas :2 cents:

Idiots like the people in this thread who want to criminalize policy disagreements are a much bigger danger to our system of government then Bush or Obama or anyone else. In the US policy disagreements should be decided by elections, not witchhunts and show trials. It is both amusing and sad how quickly the useful idiots on the left are to resort to Stalinist tactics against whomever they consider an "enemy of the people". It goes to show that the mob rule totalitarian instincts of the lunatic left are still strong. Some people never learn.

I supposes someone could sue him in civil court but as for criminal charges, no way. Obama will pardon him. I think it is pretty much tradition that each president gives the former a president a blanket pardon so I would assume Obama will do the same.

Read up on the "Official acts" doctrine by the US Supreme Court. That would be the answer to the thread's question.

Obama's people are part of this. I didn't want to believe it myself. I thought he was really going to change the course of things. But with his appointments it's quite obvious the only thing that's going to change is life as we know it. George Soros is one of the key players in this war. Most people aren't aware that on election day there was a plane crash in Mexico city. It was the #2 man in the government. Why? It was a message. The president of Mexico isn't in control. They don't want the flow of drugs to stop they want it to greatly increase. Obama isn't in control. If he doesn't follow the plan he will die. If we don't stop the plan. We will die. This isn't only a US problem. It's a worldwide problem. The only way to stop it is to inform the masses. Watch all of Alex Jones' video's and listen to his radio shows.

Here's a few others

The Power of Nightmares
Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...79275960015727
Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71665328041876
Part 3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...19789254&hl=en

The Capitalist Conspiracy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...94564876413449

The Money Masters (made in the 90's)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...19560256183936

I've got plenty more where these came from.

Policy disagreements and policies that were unconstitutional are two different things

The Supreme Court makes decisions about what is constitutional not a bunch of Red Guards on a message board. Good faith disagreements about the application of law are not war crimes. Bush had legal authorization for all of his actions. He had congressional approval for the Iraq invasion. Congress has signed off on every major move he has made (including FISA).

There is legitimate disagreement about the applicability of various laws when it comes to enemy combatants who don't fight under a the flag of a Geneva signatory. Personally I have no interest in non-US citizens engaged in hostile military actions receiving Habeas Corpus protections under US law. I have this silly notion that US constitutional provisions are applicable to US citizens. I guess that makes me a war criminal as well.

100% no since that would mean that US gov. did some bad things...
so nobody wants that in his history books, right...
especially not the US...

so they'll do everything they can to forget all that...
they will hit you with something else so you forget all about that...

Now you're getting it Our soldiers wear UN flags not US flags. They have signed a contract they will use force on US citizens.

Congress could pass a law saying it was legal to throw babies of bridges it does not mean those laws are constitutional. Congress had no constitutional authority to sign off on the Iraq war. Congress has no constitutional authority to sign off on FISA.

Please don't quote me as being in agreement with any of your insane fever dreams. People like you serve primarily as an argument for socialized mental health care. :helpme

People like me are just trying to open your eyes.

No. There is a special place reserved in hell for Dubya and Dick Cheney.

The way the system works is thus:

Congress passes a law saying it is legal to throw babies off the bridge.

President uses his executive powers to implement said law.

The law is challenged by the "Association Of Old Women Against Throwing Babies Off A Bridge".

The case is stuck down by the courts.

The executive branch no longer implements the law.

Many members of congress and the president are replaced via election because the policy of allowing people to throw babies off the bridge is seen as a very bad policy.

The new regime gets busy making sure no babies are being thrown off any bridges.

That is how a constitutional republic operates.



In a banana republic it is done differently:

Charismatic populist leader gets elected on a platform of "change" and helping "the oppressed."

The new leader starts rounding up his old political enemies and opponents accusing them of "war crimes" and "crimes against the people".

The mob is whipped into a frenzy by lurid allegations of corruption and abuse of power.

Previous regime leaders are imprisoned or exiled.

Charismatic leader solidifies his support as it becomes increasingly dangerous to be considered his enemy.

Charismatic leader starts to increase the scope of his authority for the purpose of defending the people against the "oligarchs" and "counter revolutionaries" who stand in the way of "change".

Elections are postponed as their is fear that certain "entrenched power" elements will try to thwart the "will of the people".

Charismatic leader continues to lead unopposed as the only true representative of the people.



Unfortunately for the idiot left their little Maoist circle jerk will probably have to wait as most people prefer to live in a civilized society as opposed to a third world dictatorship.

I think we both agree.

charge Bush with genocide

So it's a smart move to sidestep around the checks and balances our founding fathers setup? Seems you don't have much respect for them.

For the most part, you are correct. He covered his bases there. But the breaking of the laws of the Geneva Convention could be an issue. As well as the illegal wire tapping. Those I believe were the two biggest ways people could have gotten back at him. But he was smart to add measures to bills stating that the laws didn't apply to him.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-475.ZS.html

In Cheney v. District Court, the Supreme Court hinted where, perhaps, the line between executive accountability and presidential prerogatives might be drawn in legal proceedings against the nation's only two elected executive branch officials: the president and the vice president.

When will people realize that Bush isn't necessarily responsible... he's just a fucking puppet who does what he's told...

People need to dig deeper.

presidential pardons. but can he pardon himself? You have to believe theres going to be a very large list. can you pardon someone who isnt charged with a crime yet?

witch hunt like the one for the famous BJ that Bill received .... I would pardon that way faster then getting thousands of Americans killed :2 cents:

all the victims who died in war of Iraq (US soldiers ,Iraq people) should pursue war crimes against Bush!