Why can't presidents, kings and other leaders be anwerable for the lives lost by their action be punished long
Why can't presidents, kings, and other leaders be answerable for the decisions they made, the decisions they saw done and through when the things they set in motion during their terms of office resulted in deaths that would not have happened under someone with better planning ability, more honest care for their people
Answers:
There is a beginning of a solution with the international penal court in The Haag.
Several criminal leaders have already been judged there.
Once again, a certain country (the US) decided that it will not sign the treaty and protect its own citizens facing such charges (international war criminals etc) by not cooperating.
Hail to George.
This is just silly, presidents and leaders have to make difficult decisions. To analyze every one that resulted in a death, and to say "well, had you done this it would have been better" is a waste of time because hindsight is 20/20. If we did that, then Bill Clinton, H.W. Bush, Reagan, W Bush would all be in jail for mistakes that were made during their terms.
I totally agree... They should all be PURIFIED!
Why limit it to Presidents, why not have you be responsible. You get up late for work and in your hurry you run a red light while on the cell phone to your boss. A person has to hit their brakes hard to avoid hitting you. The person behind them runs into their rear end. The stress of the accident causes them to have a heart attack and they die. Shouldn't you be responsible for setting the chain of events into motion? Of course, they may have died from a heart attack anyway without your involvement. They could have been on their way to work to kill their boss and several other people. Them dying from a heart attack could be a good thing then. You just never know. Should we indict FDR's memory for not taking care of Japan and Hitler before they became powerful?
Got news for you: Many leaders ARE held accountable. Have you never heard of a revolution or a rebellion? As for elected leaders, they have a measure of insulation because the people voted for them, but even then they can be removed from office or not re-elected.
P.S.: You're assuming an awful lot. There's no way you can know for sure that a leader with better planning ability or more honest care for people would have avoided deaths that were supposedly caused by a less benevolent leader. The only way you can say for sure would be in a situation where a leader orders the deaths of his own people (like the now-deceased tyrant Saddam Hussein). Anything else is pure speculation. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was considered to be a shrewd businessman and one who cared for the common people, yet over 250,000 soldiers were killed after he got the U.S. involved in World War II. Are you saying he should have been held accountable in that case?
so is it bush or clinton to be punished for 9/11?
American presidents are answerable to the people.
Well i have often wondered the same thing but i guess its because they are made to be the head over everything. Most of the time the head over everything does not have to answer to the people there a head of. But if you ask me and you did its bull**** if anyone should fight it should be our government. If our president thinks its a good idea why isn't he over there holding a gun and fighting too. I guess they are just making decisions and making everyone back them up because we have no say so in the matter. Its not up to us we just have to listen to what they say and they know it.
Ivy
if they break laws, they should face justice. the people are the ones who know what leaders will be in charge of- they know the leader is the one making those important decisions.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: