Absent the intervention of an international tribunal, we have to consider Bush's war crimes- along with his attempts to subvert the Constitution and destroy the American Republic as matters for the American courts and the Anglo-American precedents governing High Crimes. For the present discussion I am going to move past the issue of guilt, since that is a matter of public record, to deal with the sentencing aspect of the case. I believe the governing precedent is the case of Charles I.
Our Constitution requires referral to a criminal court once the Senate has pronounced his guilt, but as the Stuart case demonstrates, the call for the death penalty is a strong one.
Consider the charges: "That the said Charles Stuart, being admitted King of England and therein trusted with a LIMITED power to govern...By which cruel and unnatural wars , by him, the said Charles Stuart levied, continued and renewed as aforesaid much innocent blood of the free people hath been spilt, many families have been undone, the public treasure wasted and exhausted...vast damage to the nation incurred....All which wicked designs, wars and evil practices of him the said Charles Stuart have been, and are carried on for the advancement and upholding of a personal interest of will, power and personal prerogative to himself and his family against the public interest, common right, liberty, justice and peace of the people....By all of which it appeareth that the said Charles Stuart hath been and is the occasioner of the said cruel and bloody wars; and herein guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations damages and mischiefs to this nation..."
One can only add that Bush's crimes are larger and more serious than those of Charles. In the traditions of Common and Constitutional law, can the penalty be less?