This message was self-deleted by its author

[branford]

78. You may be right.

However, my comments specifically refer to the OP's political and legal inquiry into whether a former president is immune to criminal prosecution, and if not, whether such prosecution would ever likely occur. I was responding only to another member's observation that the use of criminal prosecutions are the hallmark of oppressive regimes, not advanced democracies.

Despite what many conclusorily assert, war crimes charges are very difficult to charge and prove. For instance, if GWB reasonably relied on incorrect intelligence, that alone might absolve him from any criminal liability. The approval of Congress and the legal authorization of the use of force might also be a dispositive mitigating factor.

Please note, however, I have no desire nor inclination to act as de facto legal counsel to GWB. I simply stating my understanding of the law, not undertaking to defend Bush.

Apart from the purely legal aspect of charging GWB, as stated in my prior forum post, I do not believe that this or any subsequent administration will ever seriously investigate GWB, no less actually charge him with any crimes. To do otherwise would subject the investigating president to similar criminal scrutiny. In light of the comprises and hard decisions of any president, democrat or republican, particularly in connection with the use of force, the political and historical risks would be untenable. Many office holders, I believe including Obama, also seek to protect the Office of the Presidency and the power therein. No president, regardless of party, ever sought to diminish or degrade their own authority. Using this same reasoning, and the fact that Americans by nature are distrustful of foreign powers, no president will likely ever turn over a high ranking U.S. official, particularly a former president, to a foreign tribunal.

I imagine that history will be the only judge of GWB.