On Trying a President.

If another nation invaded the US and captured a Sitting US President, carted that President to another nation where our President is tried under the laws of that nation, would the current laws governing the devolution of the Office come into play? Would the then current Vice-President assume the office?Should the US take any other action?If the President is captured while visiting some other nation, would it make a difference in our response?If a sitting or retired US President is charged and indicted under International Laws should the US turn that President over for trial?Coffeehouse?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

My answer depends upon whether the invasion and kidnapping occurs before or after January 20, 2009.--Percy

Suppose it is after Jan. 20th, 2009 and a retired US President is charged and indicted under International Laws. Should the US turn that President over for trial?If it is before, should Dick Cheney assume the Presidency for the balance of the term? Should the US do anything else? Is there any legal justification for the US doing anything more than protesting?AbE:Which brought up an idea.If it happened before the Election of 2008, would Dick Cheney become the Republican Candidate as well as acting President and do you think it would be enough to assure his election?Edited by jar, : add another possibility

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You're probably going to disappear pretty soon for what you are proposing, so I'd like to say for the record that I don't know you.The US has more fire power than the rest of the UN. I say to any foreign country out there who wants to do this GOOD LUCK WITH THE INVASION, BECAUSE YOU'RE GONNA NEED LOTS OF IT.But in the very unlikely case of a successful invasion and capture, Cheney will probably suffer a heart attack and dies anyway.Considering the fact that we have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over and enough VX to effectively exterminate entire nations at will, which country is stupid enough to launch an invasion?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I can't locate it right now, but there is on the books a law decreeing that if a president cannot reasonably delegate the duties they are supposed to uphold (such as due to an assassination (attempt), critical injury, or under significant duress-- like being taken hostage), the Vice President will assume office as the next president. That will either be permanent or temporary based on the circumstances. The Constitution (I think?) has stated this. There is not much Congress can do about it. At most, they can seek to amend the current Constitutional provisions, but that takes a long time to draft and to pass in to Constitutional law. It is conceivable though. The UN, probably, would have to intervene on behalf of International law. If the alleged crime was egregious enough, they would consider a war crime (or some other derivative, depending on the infraction), but they also have to proceed with caution because of a potential military backlash. Something similar is happening currently in Iran between the UN.The UN would have to consider that, if popular enough, no one can retrieve a president or any other head of State without a considerable amount of opposition. That country would either have to hand him over or brace for war. Again, all depending on the popularity of the president or the alleged crime. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

---

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

I don't quite understand. What does the popularity of the President have to do with anything?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What I mean is, if a president in a country is well-liked, but the international community is asking him to handed over, there is a risk that they won't hand the president over without a fight-- i.e., a war.With the current President, there are enough people who despise him where it is conceivable that under considerable pressure from the people, that he could be handed over to another country to stand trial for some supposed international crime.But a President that is beloved by the masses would never be handed over without a fight.That's all I meant by popularity.

---

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

So popularity should determine behavior as opposed to rule of law or morality? What about the US President being taken by force or stealth?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, of course not. I'm just relaying the (im)practicality of the matter. That would be exceptionally difficult I would say. But supposing something like that happened, I'm still unclear on what angle you present the question. Are you asking if it is possible, speaking from practical approach, or are you asking if it should be done? Or both?Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

---

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

If something like that happened, what legal recourse does the US have?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I honestly don't know. I suppose we'd have to review the Geneva Convention, maybe?I've got an early day tomorrow, so I won't be up for much longer. Feel free to browse the link at your leisure.

---

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley

I'm sorry but what would the Geneva Convention have to do with it, particularly now that the US has abrogated almost all of the provisions that might even be involved?Hasn't the US set the precedent that it is permissible to invade a country and capture the President, that it is acceptable to invade a country and depose, capture and turn over the President for trial, that it is legal to take a retired, non-sitting President and try them for acts taken in their own country?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ahhh...but you forget that our president is above our own laws, so surely he is above the laws of any other country or entity (including the ones we helped to create). What do laws or precedent have to do with anything when we have Righteousness on our side?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

The Geneva Convention outlines the Rules of War for its participants. If a nation deposes the leader of another nation, that would be an act of warfare. Therefore, I thought that you might find something of that nature in the GenCon. No. This is the goal of almost any war, which has been happening long before even Greece was in power, minus the trial portion. Are you referring to someone specific or are you speaking in generalaties?

---

"Whatever weakens your reasoning, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, or takes away your relish for spiritual things-- in short, if anything increases the power and the authority of the flesh over the spirit, that to you becomes sin, however good it may be in itself." -Suzanna Wesley