Webloggin » Moron Activists in Vermont Make Plans to Arrest Bush and Cheney on War Crimes

Via Michelle Malkin:

Frustrated by the failure of the Dem leadership to carry through with impeachment, some Bush-haters in Brattleboro , Vermont want to subject President Bush and VP Cheney to arrest if they set foot in their town.

CNN (of course) is covering the non-story including allowing a Che Guevara like beanie wearing activist to compare the action to enter a petition of arrest to the Declaration of Independence.

President Bush may soon have a new reason to avoid left-leaning Vermont: In one town, activists want him subject to arrest for war crimes.

A group in Brattleboro is petitioning to put an item on a town meeting agenda in March that would make Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney subject to arrest and indictment if they visit the southeastern Vermont community.

“This petition is as radical as the Declaration of Independence, and it draws on that tradition in claiming a universal jurisdiction when governments fail to do what they’re supposed to do,” said Kurt Daims, 54, a retired machinist leading the drive.

First of all there is no such “universal jurisdiction” with regard to U.S. law. This is a precept rooted in international law that the activists believe can be used to expand the jurisdiction of the State of Vermont to supersede Constitutional limitations on their authority to prosecute the President and veep; especially while sitting in office. It is less radical than what they claim and CNN simply looks stupid reporting such nonsense (but then again mentioning stupid and CNN in one sentence is a bit redundant).

Second, let us assume that Universal Jurisdiction does apply in the United States. These idiots who went to the trouble of finding out about such notions must also know that the International Court of Justice ruled in 2002 that State officials did have immunity under international law while serving in office for the benefit of ensuring that a government can function without the interference of such prosecutions. This by the way is the same claim made by the Executive Branch of the U.S. government in protecting the President from prosecution while sitting in office. Either way the President can claim immunity.

But of course the United States is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court. Even if it was the criminal jurisdiction can only be exercised by an international organization under international law and not a state; thus this is not an option that can be exercised in the manner claimed by the activists.

Dispensing of the notion that Universal Jurisdiction can be applied in such a manner we then look to U.S. law as an alternative. The question boils down to the immunity of both the President and the Vice President in such cases. This is where it gets a little vague because the Constitution does not specifically mention such immunity with regard to the President and the VP. So we must move to case law which is again vague and often contradictory; offering something for everybody.

Many sides of the coin must be considered. Sequentialists argue that the President must be impeached before prosecution. Others argue that at best this would only apply at best to the President and not to the VP. Critics claim that the sequentialist argument is not held up by the Constitution pointing out that it explicitly offers privilege (limited immunity) from arrest to Senators and Representatives but is silent with respect to the President and Vice President.

As such the case is largely one that must be decided upon by the Supreme Court. In 1973 Solicitor General Robert Bork gave a sequentialist opinion to the Supreme Court; stating that a sitting President is immune from arrest and prosecution while sitting in office. In 2000 Randolph D. Moss, Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memo on A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution. In that memo he stated that “The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” based in part on Bork’s 1973 brief.

In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination. We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.

Some of course argue that the government can function if the President is prosecuted while sitting in office, pointing out that the Vice President could take over the President’s functions. Herein lies another problem with the activists. They are seeking to remove both the Vice President and the President. This of course would put Pelosi in charge but it could easily be argues that this would cause a huge upheaval and perhaps undermine the ability of the government to function. Further, neither the President of the Vice President can be prosecuted if such prosecution would divulge military secrets that could damage national security.

There are so many holes to this non-story that it amounts to nothing more than a bunch of Bush Derangement lefties beating their chest in a manner that will most certainly damage Democrats by placing a wedge down the middle of the party.

Ironically it was Democrats that laid much of this precedent in place with the defense of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky trial and subsequent cases from Paula Jones on down. It will be fun to watch such nonsense play out as the BDS crowd steps up their efforts in 2008 prior to the election. With the most recent progress in Iraq and voters looking for leaders to unite the nation nothing could make the left seem more petty and ignorant. As Bush said, “Bring it On”.