Why hasn't George W. Bush been arrested yet for deserting his military unit during time of war?
478245
omg did you just get on that bandwagon, man it's like deja vu from two years ago, two years!!!!!!!  I mean seriously what does it matter?  he'll be out in less than a year!!!!
298080
If he desires to leave, despite the fact that he is needed and many other soldiers have many other problems a lot worse than this and chose to stay in, he can try for a "hardship discharge". That's basically saying that continuing his enlistment would cause an undo hardship. That would avoid a dishonorable discharge, which for the record, if he were to get one, there are a lot more things he would have to be concerned about than financial security.He would be a felon. he could not vote. He could not own a firearm. his credit would be shot, for life. And anyone who ever does a background check on him would know. Also, it's pretty much impossible to get a dishonorable discharge today without having committed some crime that would earn time in military prison.
951715
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the courts ruled that an enemy combatant, without uniform, is a war criminal, and could be detained indefinitely (until hostilities end, but until then, indefinitely), and that he could be tried by the US in whatever time frame the tribunal deems necessary.  Next, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (Hamdi and Hamdan sound similar but are two very different cases) the courts struck down a few of Bush's initiatives but upheld many of the other ones.  Afterwards, the MCA was passed (the military commission act) which allows for the Secretary of Defense to decide what is a war crime, it defines conspiracy as a war crime, and suspends habeous corpus for those caught as enemy combatants.  \n\nNow, with all that behind us, the libs feel they are threatened because someone will be showing up to their house and hauling them off to jail.  Not so.  They would have to be involved in conspiracy to commit a terrorist act or to fight against our own troops to be detained.  If this is what they are doing, then yes, they should be upset about these laws.  If they are just a normal American Joe, however, nothing in these laws will EVER affect them.  Its just another way they want to weaken our national security.  Good question
88267
Not quite so, here we think that the general international policy of the United States for the past century is criminal, no matter who the president. Bush just happens to be worse than the rest. Look at it this way, he has robbed from his own people with his tax reforms. So, he is not only war criminal (like most US presidents) he is also a regular criminal-- thief :) cocaine abuser and many other things you and I will never know about.\nSpain
865217
Any true patriot should not be shielding a war criminal.\n\nBush admitted to violating the federal war crimes statute (18 USC 2441). The Supreme Court confirmed it. Just because he's gotten Congress to retroactively wipe the slate clean doesn't mean he didn't break the laws as they were at the time.\n\nAny true patriot should be demanding that our elected officials obey our own laws. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be happening.
47347
Actually, tough as this might be to accept there are a number of reasons...\n\n- It has not been proven that he lied\n- It has not been proven that he broke any laws\n\nContrary to conspiracy theories, a republican led congress cannot prevent an impeachment if either of the above occur, or prevent an investigation or judicial hearing should the democrats push for one.\n\nReality, take a deep breath and try to take this in, as we can assume the democrats would drive for this the second they felt they could, it is a fairly safe assumption that President Bush has done nothing that would warrant his impeachment.\n\nSorry to burst your bubble...
1033422
Dan Rather's story was not false, but the papers he used were. His story is true, George W. Bush was AWOL from the air national guard. As a matter of fact he was absent from the guard for about a year. No one in Alabama ever recalls seeing him. We were at war with Vietnam, to be AWOL in a time of war for more than 30 days is considered desertion and treason. He does not qualify to be president if it could ever be pr oven. He had the records destroyed when he was governor of Texas. Furthermore Dan Rather ought to be given a medal for attempting to inform the public. There is a million dollar reward put out there for anyone who seen George Bush while serving in the Alabama National Guard. Don't you think if anyone who served could recall seeing him they would step forward,. The reason he could not fly planes after 1972 is he refused to take a drug test on his physical, that is the year that the military implemented drug testing of servicemen in all branches. The Republican party does not want anyone to be able to prove George W.Bush was not in Alabama, they attacked Dan Rather on the only grounds they could the story was true, they did not deny the story, they stated the papers were fraudulent.
1048422
I've posted the story I think your refering to for those who aren't aware of recent developements.\n\nHowever, a U.S. official close to the investigation said at least one of the soldiers, all assigned to the 502nd Infantry Regiment, has admitted his role and been arrested. Two soldiers from the same regiment were slain this month when they were kidnapped at a checkpoint near Youssifiyah. (1)\n\nThe confesson has nothing to do with violations of the Geneva Convention.  It does have to do with a military presence in another country and those who would abuse or misuse there power.  The sad thing is it reflects on us as a nation and there will come a time when the military won't be able to justify these things as the minority.  This story is horrific in the sense that we were outraged over those two soliders and now we come to find out it could be in retaliation for other crimes.  The investigation is pending and one can hope it's a mistake  but I trust the military will deal with parties if found guilty.
800043
Given that we are not legally "at war" (as defined by federal and the Constitution), Bush was again talking out of his ash .......\n\nThe very fact that Bush is deluded enough to think that there is any way elections could have been canceled, when the Constitution mandates elections (war or not) just shows how dangerous he is....\n\nAnd the very fact that Bish is stupid enough to fail to realize that there is no legal state of war (which can only be declared by Congress, and hasn't been) shows either his utter disrespect for the rule of law, or just how brain-damaged he is regarding what he thinks the government is allowed to do. \n\nBoth are yet more examples of why Bush is too dangerous, too clueless, and too criminal to be allowed to remain in office.
790944
Complicated question....\n\nWhen you say discharged...if you mean they served their initial 4 year (example) obligation and then were discharged from active duty 99% of soldier still have a 3 or 4 year reserve duty obligation.  Mine was 3 years.  If this is the case, yes they can be called back to active duty due to their reserve duty obligation.\n\nLegal?  Yes.  Who ever you are speaking about should have....or should now read the contract they originally signed.  It is all in there.\n\nThey don't want to go?  As I understand it they will be considered as UA...Unauthorized Absence. Then after a certain time (perhaps 10 days...nor sure of the current time frame) they will be considered AWOL....Absent Without Leave.  At this point they will start to look for the person at the last know address etc.  Then on day 31 it gets very serious.  At day 31 they can; an in my experience as a former army officer, and will be charged with Desertion. It is not automatic; it depends if the army feels the person has no intent to ever return. Minimum jail time now at Ft. Leavenworth, KS last time I checked is 5 years.\n\nYou can research it on the net.  Just Google or use any search engine you like and enter \n- UCMJ Article 85\n\nOK.... if the person in question has received their actual dischage as in Honorable, General, Less than Honorable, Dishonorable or Medical and it is so noted on their DD214.... then they have completed the full service obligaton and only an act of Congress can get them back in....and even then...what are the odds.\n\nFrom your question however it sounds like this isn't the case.\n\nI use to counsel young soldier on being UA and AWOL and had to charge one with desertion...almost 30 years ago.  If you or your friend have any particular questions or just want some feedback...hit my YID and my e-mail is available on my 360 site.\n\nAlso, I am sure other people will have more current information....I'd go with that vs. my historical data!
849234
For one day it would take the Military to decide he was too dangerous to continue.  Otherwise, it takes impeachment from Congress, which would take time.  Vets are organizing to do that.
902541
The President was in the Air national Guard.  His unit happened to be one that didn't deploy.  He could have and he would have had they deployed.  Not like clinton who was in Russia getting his orders, or Kerry using the system to his own gain.
995929
No, but the REAL scary thought is...\n\nIf he declairs Martial Law on the whole country he can serve indefinate if he makes up enough excusses to keep Martial Law in effect.\n\n;-)\nTwisted...
1068722
being a veteran he has signed a contract and if he doest show up he can be arrested and charged with awol
853304
Evidently he was not serving his time at the Alabama Air Guard unit he was assigned to. A  $10,000 reward for anyone to come forward with proof they served in the Alabama Air Guard with Bush has never been applied for. If I had "served" with a future president of the U.S., I'd damn well remember it and be $10,000. richer.
1095036
Because going to Iraq was a big mistake. Because, president Bush lied to the American public about the reasons for going into the war. No one is complaining about the Afghanistan war, the other war that Bush decided. But Iraq was decided based upon lies. That is just criminal, it was not a political mistake, it is criminal and he should be punished accordingly.
215456
Ok, look:\n\n There is no reason why George W Bush should be "booted." He is protecting this country to the best of his ability and the Liberals are exactly the opposite. People need to realize this:  How can you protect a country that doesn't exist?  If we would not went to War on Terror then we might not have a country. The terrorist would have kept bombing us and killing us. Then, we wouldn't have a country...then we wouldn't have a Constitution...then we wouldn't have any rights.