Should a former president be able to go anywhere he wants in the world?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sydde, Feb 5, 2011.

  1. Sydde, Feb 5, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2011

    Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #1
    Former president G. W. Bush had scheduled a trip to Geneva to speak in front of a Jewish charity group. He has canceled those plans because of the possibility of a hostile environment there.

    Some Stories

    What form of additional protection does a former president of the US deserve? How far would we go to secure his safety in the case of foul play? Proportionate response?
     
  2. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #2
    I'm not sure what your point is. The title of the thread leaves one to believe that it's a global question, not one about a specific person. Then, you post a link about Bush, and infer that Geneva is a "hostile environment" whatever that might be and then you bring up former presidents as though they are demigods or something.

    I'm really confused.

    The right to travel isn't enshrined in the constitution and the revocation of a US passport is quite common. Other countries have the right to allow foreigners to enter or not to enter. It's their choice. It has nothing to do with the US.

    Why should former US presidents be granted any kind of special global immunity or protection from courts of law in developed countries?

    You're obviously dangling some bait, so why don't you tell us what you're fishing for?
     
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    A former president would prevent an inviting target... especially if the former president initiated an illegal war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

    Even so, that former president, and any other former president should enjoy the finest security when they travel abroad, for as long as they live.

    I would consider it a perk of obtaining our highest public office.
     
  4. Apple OC macrumors 68040

    Apple OC

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Location:
    Hogtown
    #4
    Former Presidents are protected by the Secret Service for 10 years ... used to be for life ... it was reduced to 10 years in 1997.

    However G.W Bush is still protected.

    http://www.secretservice.gov/protection.shtml
     
  5. Sydde thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #5
    No, a former president is not a beatified-type person, but they are granted a great deal of respect and honor simply for having been president. But this one is highly unpopular, even now, overseas, AFAICT. If he were to end up in, for example, the Hague, where he might receive a fair trial for whatever he might be accused of, should the current government attempt to get him back, without trial? Or should he just be provided with good quality counsel to fight the charges? Or should we just say, "Stay in Dallas, we don't need to have to worry about saving your ass?"

    I, personally, would like to see the man stand trial, so that he would have to defend himself before people who would not just take his BS, but somehow I think such a situation would end up a lot more complicated.
     
  6. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #6
    I'd love to see him stand trial too.

    But that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect him when he travels.

    Keep him safe.

    Then hang him. ;)
     
  7. Sydde thread starter macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #7
    No, that is too pat. It would be much more satisfying to put him in a 6 x 10 cell for the rest of his life. Where he can watch. And maybe have me for a cellmate (though that might be considered cruel and unusual).
     
  8. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    I'm not really sure why George Bush thinks Switzerland will be unsafe.

    Switzerland is one of the safest places in the world, if Bush has an issue with Switzerland then probably outside of Singapore he probably won't be safe.
     
  9. Kestrel452 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #9
    All past presidents get secret service protection for life.

    Bush will not stand trial, as he shouldn't. I don't want to name any names here, but I seem to remember many other past presidents who've aggressively invaded other nations such as: kosovo, somalia, vietnam, ..... i mean the list goes on. Even Truman didn't go on trial for dropping nukes on Japan (however what most people dont realize is that hiroshima and nagasaki were military targets). If you guys want to start hanging presidents for starting wars with people who didnt attack us in the first place, might i suggest going and digging up the grave of JFK and LBJ. Also tie a noose for Bill Clinton. There are others but its 6AM here and i cant remember them all.
     
  10. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #10
    But the execution of George W. Bush is so haute couture, especially amongst those who condemn capital punishment. Or don't you read the latest fashion news?
     
  11. Gelfin, Feb 6, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2011

    Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #11
    I am not sure the term "hostile environment" is appropriate, as it suggests more of an angry mob threatening violence than a measured and lawful response to an alleged crime. Likewise the use of "safe."

    Say you have a lot of speeding tickets, a failure-to-appear and a bench warrant in another state. You would be well advised to avoid that state, but it would be a distortion of the facts to say that state is threatening your personal safety. Now to take it a little farther, say you are a former President. Do you think you deserve to have the entire weight of the United States, including military response if needed, at your back to ensure you can travel to that state without facing the lawful consequences of your actions? Is that what we grant our Presidents, absolute immunity from legal adversity in perpetuity, backed by all necessary force?

    The best thing the United States can do to protect this particular former President is for the State Department to consistently advise him to enjoy a long, comfortable retirement spent entirely within the borders of the United States. Foreign travel is unlikely to go well for him.

    Funny, nobody is proposing to do this, even for Bush. It is his administration's willful practice of torture in violation of international law and United States treaty obligations that is likely to land him in The Hague, an alleged crime for which you would fully support prosecution were it not your own President who stood accused of it.
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Kosovo at the very least was to prevent genocide, and there wasn't a UN resolution against it.
     
  13. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #13
    You're right. I actually don't want Bush hanged. (I did include that winkie)

    Even expecting a trial in world court is unrealistic.

    We're simply not ready to allow other nations to judge our leaders and hold them accountable for their crimes against humanity.

    That's what NCOs are for.
     
  14. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #14
    indeed, the thread title and OP are a bit misleading
     
  15. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #15
    As I understand it, the case filed was to prosecute Bush for crime of ordering torture and not the invasion of Iraq.
     
  16. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #16
    Yes, I remember that article in Vanity Fair, it was right next to the new Ralph Lauren spread on "Old Sparky"
     
  17. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #17
    1.Bush is known for allowing bending rules of the geneva convention so how can anybody be surprised that when he wants to go to geneva onto some gala that might not go down so well ?

    2. regarding safety abroad: while the secret service is responsible, all the surrounding costs aren't exactly covered by the US in any way
    when Bush visited germany as acting and very unpopular US president the direct costs and economic losses (closed highways, rivers, airports etc.) amounted to 400-500 million euro
    just the costs of shielding protesters from him, was and still is quite substantial
     
  18. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #18
    If they want to avoid trouble, why would the Jewish charity group hire someone as controversial as Bush in the first place?
     
  19. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #19
    Ah, "how to keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Broadway?" ;)

    For you, right? Well, they do take your shoelaces.
     
  20. SuperCachetes macrumors 6502a

    SuperCachetes

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    Away from you
    #20
    Wrong. Why would you post this if you're not sure? :confused:

    The correct duration has already been stated. It's 10 years for everybody after Clinton.


    Now that Lebowski reference, I got. :)
     
  21. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #21
    I've always thought hearing from people you disagree with is interesting, enlightening, and helps you understand their reasoning process. What ha happened to President Bush causing him to cancel his trip looks bad on behalf of other people, not him. At this point in time, Dubya is not the President, and former US Presidents, including him, have done significant charity work and helped many people. Look at all the Charity work that Bill Clinton has done in the past decade? Bill and George teamed up (at the request/blessing of President Obama) and made the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, and have helped get Haitians tons of aid. Bush could have helped raise money for the charity group in which he was set to speak to.

    Former Presidents should (IF desired by them) be protected for life (via law enforcement by their side) and if need be relocated and/or given a new identify.
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    Isn't that Bush Senior?
     
  23. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #23
    [​IMG] Brilliant.

    A Presidents' Protection Program.

    Thanks for the giggle. :D
     
  24. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #24
    A country would be idiotic to arrest a former President/leader no matter how well of a job they did and what implications were brought against them. Bush Jr. greatly damaged diplomatic relations while in office by not showing respect for the desires/votes/warnings of other countries)...after what he did regarding international relations, enough stress exists as it is and arresting him/violently protesting would not help. Bush did IMO one of the worst execution of strengthening diplomatic relations of any President. Oddly, Clinton and Reagan, whom one was right before and the other was only a few years before Clinton were probably some of the best and possibly the best in recent times. Bill Clinton constantly travels internationally (look at his charity work in Africa) and is well received by most countries. The Reagans also did substantial charity work and were well received post-presidency. The above is not related to ranking the job they did; it is discussing international relations with other countries.


    Sr. has been involved but it is mainly Clinton and Bush Jr.
    http://www.clintonbushhaitifund.org/
     
  25. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #25
    That "hostile environment" is the threat of actually putting the bastard up for war crimes, as any adherence to UN/Global agreements dictates. Too bad not enough of us ever live up to our promises.
     

Share This Page