jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (7 posts)

Should the head of state be held accountable for the consequences of their decis

  1. Tom_Radford profile image59
    Tom_Radfordposted 7 years ago

    Should the head of state be held accountable for the consequences of their decisions once retired?

    Specifically I'm referring to Bush and Blair with this post. It seems to me that when in power you can make the most terrible and misguided decisions but as soon as you either retire or lose an eledction you can wash your hands of the entire affair. In Tony Blair's new book he dismisses the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq by suggesting Saddam had enough desire for us to belive they were there! This is pitiful stuff. He knew he was wrong, but it's not a crime because he was head of state. And politicans get away with theiving expenses money from the tax payer too!

  2. DStettler profile image59
    DStettlerposted 7 years ago

    While I'd love to say yes they should hold responsibility I don't think I can. Mainly because we the people voted them in. We allowed certain people to represent us and in so doing put part of the blame on ourselves. I will not say i agreed or agree with all decisions made by those we elect, but the truth of the matter is we did elect them. Now crimes and such that they do before during or after their running time, those they most definitely must pay for. I don't even know if what I said makes sense, but that's what i believe.

  3. Apostle Jack profile image59
    Apostle Jackposted 7 years ago

    Of course all roads points toward the one that did the deed.You can't blame it on the rain.

  4. dabeaner profile image57
    dabeanerposted 7 years ago

    Why not include Carter, Clinton, Obama, also -- all the way back to and including Abraham Lincoln.  The only question I have is:  lynching or firing squad?

    http://hubpages.com/hub/america-what-we … the-answer

  5. profile image0
    scriber1posted 7 years ago

    To do as this question suggests would require a constitutional amendment because officials are not liable per se while in office.  And that's actually a good provision because otherwise every sewer trout lawyer in the world would be standing in line to sue every single government official and government would simply cease functioning at all.  Some would suggest that's not a bad idea....then again, so does every drunk at every corner bar

  6. DJProfessorK profile image59
    DJProfessorKposted 6 years ago

    Every head of state has done things he should be held accountable for. Clinton (Lewinsky), Obama (farce of a healthcare bill), Reagan (Iran-Contra), Nixon (Watergate), Thatcher (Falkand Islands), and so on and so forth.

    It's a sort of immunity that comes with the responsibility of such a post. This isn't anything new so I am not sure why this is still an issue.

    The weight of the responsibility gives them a sort of privilege.

  7. marwan asmar profile image73
    marwan asmarposted 6 years ago

    I am not sure because its a "political post". However, in the case of Bush and Blair, they should be held accountable because it was proven time and again Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, and yet they went ahead with it, and blown the guy into smithreens ignoring the rest of the world. Meanwhile there is "regime change" and chaos looms over the country, mayhem, murder sectarian strife continues, while Bush and Blair rehabilitated as peace makers--and Blair showered as a man of peace. Ultimate hipocracy maybe. The war was a huge mistake, at a huge expense, yes they must be brought to justice, because in the end they became just like Saddam Hussein.