Should the five SCOTUS judges

[Occulus]

who put whistle-ass in the WH be included if * ends up at the Hague?

After all, it is ultimately their decisions and their alone that enabled this mess.

[BattyDem]

1. Frankly ...

I think they should have been impeached for putting Bush* in the WH!


On edit: I forgot to answer your question.

Yes, I do believe they should be brought up on charges if Bush* is. The Bush* cabal has taken over this country and they are directly responsible for it.

[jobycom]

2. No, there's was an internal treason

And their crime wasn't putting Bush in the White House. That would at least be a crime that would pass with time. They declared that an election could be held without requiring all of the votes to be counted. That will never leave us. Now the government and not the people decide who will run the nation, and even if we hold ten consecutive uncontested elections, it is still only because those in power agree to it. The moment they don't like our choice, they have the precedent to alter it.

No Hague. They should have been taken care of by the American courts alone, and still should be.

[ReadTomPaine]

5. Well said, we're going to live with this one for a long time...

...long after Bush is gone.

[knight_of_the_star]

3. They broke no international laws

So the Hague has no jurisdiction. However, I do think that 5 impeachments are in order in 2005...

[dbt]

4. I'm with jobycom. No Hague, PLENTY Impeachment!

They declared that an election could be held without requiring all of the votes to be counted. Then they said the decision could not be used as precedent in future cases. THEN, they were too ashamed to sign their fucking names to their decision!

I don't think what the Five Traitors did to this country qualifies as a war crime, hence no Hague. But they damn sure unleashed a Plague of Eee-Ville on the planet when they selected bu$h.

Too bad Repugs don't get the significance of what the Court did in Bush v Gore. They've been SO "States Rights" for the past hundred years and so AGAINST "Judicial Activism." Hey Pugs, What if the Court picks the WRONG guy next time?


dbt

[OldSoldier]

6. They know exactly what the Felonious Five did

It was absolutely critical that Their Guy be put in the White House. More critical than States Rights. More critical than the rule of law, the Constitution, the concept that the candidate who wins the most votes takes the election. (Before the election the pundits thought Bush would win the popular vote and Gore the Electoral College. Freepers would have rioted if that would have happened. Then again, Gore won the popular vote and the Freepers rioted--they had a rally outside the Naval Observatory where they stood there and screamed "Get out of Dick Cheney's house." And this in December, when Cheney still had the "-elect" in his title and it was still Gore's house.

Republicans only care about the rule of law when it rules in their favor. We know that. That's why we're here.

[Mairead]

7. You bet! A case can be made that they're accessories.

They could have stepped in and declared that only Congress could take a decision to attack another country without provocation.

[forgethell]

8. Do you

really think that GWB* is going to wind up in the Hague?? Because it isn't going to happen. No US president, Dem or Repuke is going to allow it. Not ever. Sets a bad precedent, and all that, you know.

Furthermore, no matter if the progressive forces sweep the White House, and both houses of Congress, there will not be an impeachment. Why?? because they definitely will not get 2/3 of the Senate. The Republican Paarty is certainly smart enough to see how 1/3 of the Senate can block any progress of the other side's agenda. The Democrats taught them that lesson. so the House won't bother to impeach. they can't get a conviction, and look at the harm the fruitless attempt to kick Clinton out did to the Republicans.

You guys are living in a dream world. You need to get your feet on the ground and make constructive arguments.

Hey, no offense, but that's the way I see it.

[jobycom]

9. Probably, but not definitely on all points.

I agree with your basic premise that a lot of people want a miracle, and that we should be working to win the old fashioned way instead. And Bush is not likely to wind up before the Hague. Europeans are not as into symbolism as Americans. They are more pragmatic, and want to move forward from this point, rather than spending too much time worrying about what's already been done.

But Bush has started a war on a lie, and someone he might be covering for has leaked information to the press that could endanger a covert, and could undermine a lot of intelligence. Impeachment isn't far-fetched. IF people begin turning on Bush, IF things in Iraq continue to go badly and body counts continue to mount, and no progress is made, people will start looking for a scapegoat. If people begin to see Bush as a liar who started a war, and caused a lot of American deaths, not to mention (and I am sincerely hoping we start to notice this one day as a nation) hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, for no reason, then they may turn on him, especially if they begin to see that we are no safer now than two years ago. The Republicans in Congress would turn on him rather than go down with him. By voting impeachment, they can claim they were lied to rather than complicit. Some will be genuinely outraged, even. Then you will see Repubs turn on Bush, and maybe even try to lead the charge to get rid of him.

Keep in mind the hypocrisy charge, too. If evidence mounts against Bush, many will want to defend their integrity by voting to impeach Bush, to prove that Clinton wasn't just a partisan impeachment.

Unlikely. I wish we would all spend more time working to beat Bush rather than hoping for a magic wand solution. But it's not inconceivable.