We should be discussing World Court - not impeachment.

[kentuck]

Talk of "impeachment" is doing a disservice to the idea of justice, in my opinion.
=========================================================================================

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/030306.html

<snip>
Bush, of course, insists that the United States does not torture despite extensive evidence that detainees in the Iraq War and the War on Terror have been subjected to simulated drowning by “water-boarding,” beatings to death, suffocations, coffin-like confinements, painful stress positions, naked exposure to heat and cold, anal rape, sleep deprivation, dog bites, and psychological ploys involving sexual and religious humiliation.

<snip>
Bush’s lawyers went into federal court in Washington on March 2 and argued that a new law that specifically prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees – known as the McCain Amendment after its sponsor, Sen. John McCain – can’t be enforced at Guantanamo Bay because another clause of the law grants these prisoners only limited access to U.S. courts.

<snip>
So, Congress went through the trouble of enacting a new law barring cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of inmates – to go along with earlier laws prohibiting torture – only to confront a variety of administration arguments that make all the laws meaningless.

<snip>
Bawazir’s lawyers cited an “extremely painful” new tactic of brutally force-feeding their client and other inmates on hunger strikes. The procedure involved strapping Bawazir into a special chair, forcing a larger-than-normal feeding tube through his nose to his stomach, and then leaving him in the restraints for almost two hours while he soiled himself.

[geomon666]

1. It'll never happen.

Unless Bush is convicted in absentia and then the new Nazi Hunters come looking for him. But this country will never sign on to that. I don't care who's the president. JFK or FDR could still be alive and they would never, ever sign on to that.

[Talismom]

2. If they have a strangle-hold on the elections and all three branches of

government, eventually a growing % of the population would happily cooperate with any such effort to overthrow these traitors.

[leeroysphitz]

3. No. We should be discussing ways of FILLING the house

and Senate with true, honest progressives that will have the PEOPLE'S best interests at heart and will work (for years to come I'm afraid) to undo the DAMAGE this admin has done. Bush is in the middle of his second (stolen) term. At this point he has become just another DISTRACTION.

Yes of course he deserves to be prosecuted for his crimes but our priority NEEDS to be taking our government back. Energy spent on impeachment is energy NOT being spent on taking our country back, IMO.

[HamdenRice]

4. A little info on competence of courts -- these are not exclusive

When you say World Court, I assume you mean that the Bush administration has committed war crimes, and impeachment is not enough of a punishment.

I agree, but just wanted to let you know that in international law, "the law" and "the courts" can work in confusing ways.

Bush could be impeached because his actions fit under the language of the Constitution as being "high crimes and misdemeanors." If impeached, he would be removed from office.

After removal from office, he could be prosecuted for various crimes. Those could be crimes under US law, but US courts would also have jurisdiction to hear criminal cases against him under international law, such as war crimes.

The International Criminal Court which also hears cases against individuals for war crimes, usually has jurisdiction if the national courts for some reason cannot function to prosecute the person.

So in other words, US courts can apply international law to prosecute war criminals. He doesn't have to go to the ICCt.

BTW, the International Court of Justice, usually referred to as the World Court, is different from the International Criminal Court. The ICJ hears cases between states, not cases against individuals. But if Iraq brought a case against the United States (as opposed to against Bush), that could be heard in the World Court.