NationStates Jolt Archive

Law School Dean Calls Conference to Plan Bush War Crimes Prosecution

Posted Jun 17, 2008, 06:51 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The dean of Massachusetts School of Law at Andover is planning a September conference to map out war crimes prosecutions, and the targets are President Bush and other administration officials.

The dean, Lawrence Velvel, says in a statement that “plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth."

Other possible defendants, he said, include federal judges and John Yoo, the former Justice Department official who wrote one of the so-called torture memos.

“We must insist on appropriate punishments,” he continued, “including, if guilt is found, the hangings visited upon top German and Japanese war criminals in the 1940s."

Velvel elaborates in an introduction to a series of articles published in The Long Term View (PDF). He writes “there is no question” that Bush and other officials are guilty of the federal crime of conspiracy to commit torture.

He also criticizes Justice Department officials for their legal memos. “The DOJ lawyers who wrote the corrupt legal memos giving attempted cover to Bush's actions have been rewarded by federal judgeships, cabinet positions, and high falutin' professorships,” he writes. Yoo is a professor at the University of California-Berkeley law school, while another former Justice Department official who signed a Yoo memo, Jay Bybee, is a judge on the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Velvel tears into President Bush as well, writing: “The man ultimately responsible for the torture had a unique preparation and persona for the presidency: he is a former drunk, was a serial failure in business who had to repeatedly be bailed out by daddy's friends and wanna-be-friends, was unable to speak articulately despite the finest education(s) that money and influence can buy, has a dislike of reading, so that 100-page memos have to be boiled down to one page for him, is heedless of facts and evidence, and appears not even to know the meaning of truth.”

A Wall Street Journal editorial published today stands in stark contrast to Velvel’s criticism. It assails House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers for issuing subpoenas seeking information about the possible torture of Sept. 11 suspects. The editorial mentions the testimony of British professor Philippe Sands, who also contends U.S. officials are guilty of war crimes.

“Nearly seven years after 9/11, the U.S. homeland hasn't been struck again and American civil liberties remain intact,” the newspaper writes. “So how does Congress say ‘thank you’? By trying to ruin the men who in good faith set the legal rules that have kept us safe.”
http://www.abajournal.com/news/law_school_dean_calls_conference_to_plan_bush_war_crimes_prosecution/

Excellent, excellent.

I certainly hope they do prosecute. That would be a good start to clearing the name of the US.

-SNIP-
I am concerned by what appears to be an invocation of the death penalty in the 4th paragraph. I cannot support this until I can be sure nobody will die as a result of it.

Good on them. Bush and his cronies deserve to be punished for their crimes. Although i hope that they wont ask for the death penalty, throwing them into prison on a "life without parole" sentence is much worse for them.

I am concerned by what appears to be an invocation of the death penalty in the 4th paragraph. I cannot support this until I can be sure nobody will die as a result of it.

Oh go on. I'll be fun. Nothing like a few show trials followed by some hangings to restore the US's international standing.

I have little or no time for empty rhetoric. No trials will occur, none of these "prosecutions" mean anything but wasted time and money. All of the decisions made they speak of were taken in the course of government actions, and are therefore covered by sovereign immunity. And the Dean and company well know it.

I have little or no time for empty rhetoric. No trials will occur, none of these "prosecutions" mean anything but wasted time and money. All of the decisions made they speak of were taken in the course of government actions, and are therefore covered by sovereign immunity. And the Dean and company well know it.

So the Nuremberg trials after WW2 where illegal aswell ? seeing as how gov.officials where convicted and hung after those trials.

And Saddam Husseins trial was illegal aswell ? seeing as he was a president aswell.

So the Nuremberg trials after WW2 where illegal aswell ? seeing as how gov.officials where convicted and hung after those trials.

And Saddam Husseins trial was illegal aswell ? seeing as he was a president aswell.

You either need to overthrow the established government or... well, the only other option is kidnapping and having a trial in another country big enough to make any attack extremely costly. That's the only way it will work.

troll thread is obvious is obvious

You either need to overthrow the established government or... well, the only other option is kidnapping and having a trial in another country big enough to make any attack extremely costly. That's the only way it will work.

Silly me, thinking that laws where meant to prevent a *rule of the strong* type government....

You either need to overthrow the established government or... well, the only other option is kidnapping and having a trial in another country big enough to make any attack extremely costly. That's the only way it will work.

Stripping Doctrine
In Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court provided an important exception to the 11th Amendment sovereign immunity States enjoy: the Stripping Doctrine.

The Stripping Doctrine is a legal fiction which allows injunctive relief against what are essentially state actions. While the 11th Amendment immunizes States from actions by private parties, the Stripping Doctrine argues that when a state officer takes an unconstitutional action, she acts beyond the scope of her authority, as no State could have authorized her to act unconstitutionally. When acting outside such authority the officer was "stripped" of her official power and cannot invoke the State's immunity, although she remains subject to the consequences of her official conduct.

The doctrine is a legal fiction because the officer, in acting unconstitutionally, was outside her official duties, but the citizen can now sue her for injunctive relief in her official capacity. Unless a citizen can enjoin the action the officer took in her official capacity, no remedy could be provided for an otherwise unconstitutional action (as the State itself is immune from prosecution).
http://classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/fedcts/echarts/11th-t.htm#11thamd2_8\]

With several of Bush's actions apparently breaching several treaties, which are legally part of the constitution, this would apply, allowing prosecution.

troll thread is obvious is obvious

Err wut? LOL

No. Not trolling. Quite serious.

I'm always glad to see that legal persecution does not stop only because of the fame or other position of the potentially accused.


However, two things make me doubt the sincerity of this or, I should better say, that this paper and its originators are to be taken serious in any way or form, especially in their capacity as lawyers:

1) I'm an ESL student so I may have gotten this wrong, but do they call for hanging as acceptable punishment if the persons in question are found guilty of the alleged crimes here:
“We must insist on appropriate punishments,” he continued, “including, if guilt is found, the hangings visited upon top German and Japanese war criminals in the 1940s." ?

2) This, especially the bolded parts, has no place in a journal article of anyone wishing to be only remotely respected as a legal and/or academic figure:
The man ultimately responsible for the torture had a unique preparation and persona for the presidency: he is a former drunk, was a serial failure in business who had to repeatedly be bailed out by daddy's friends and wanna-be-friends, was unable to speak articulately despite the finest education(s) that money and influence can buy, has a dislike of reading, so that 100-page memos have to be boiled down to one page for him, is heedless of facts and evidence, and appears not even to know the meaning of truth.

These are either absolutely inappropriate in style and/or constitute childish insults irrelevant to the point he is supposed to be making.



All in all, nice intention but incredibly bad performance. Sorta like Micheal Moore.

I'd also like to add that the Mass. School of Law, of which the originator of this, er, idea is Dean of, has so far failed to gain accreditation of the ABA (American Bar Association), thus leaving it in a rather dubious light as to its, say, professionalism, seeing how

ABA accreditation is important not only because it affects the recognition of the law schools involved, but it also affects a graduate's ability to practice law in a particular state. Specifically, in most U.S. jurisdictions, graduation from an ABA-accredited law school is expressly stated as a prerequisite towards being allowed to sit for that state's bar exam, and even for existing lawyers to be admitted to the bar of another state upon motion. Even states which recognize unaccredited schools within their borders will generally not recognize such schools from other jurisdictions for purposes of bar admission. (wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association))

So the Nuremberg trials after WW2 where illegal aswell ? seeing as how gov.officials where convicted and hung after those trials.

Technically speaking yes. Those were illegal for the laws they were prosecuted under (at least some of them) were not even around when the crimes were committed.

And Saddam Husseins trial was illegal aswell ? seeing as he was a president aswell.

Also noticed that it was the Iraqis that tried him and not an international court?

Silly me, thinking that laws where meant to prevent a *rule of the strong* type government....

Silly you, yes. As a rule of thumb, governments represent power, and the ones who will gravitate there will be the ones willing to do whatever it takes to get, and hold, that power. That generally includes making themselves immune from backlash over their actions.

[
With several of Bush's actions apparently breaching several treaties, which are legally part of the constitution, this would apply, allowing prosecution.

Nix, Daistallia; treaties become part of our law, NOT part of our Constitution. The Constitution overrides EVERYTHING.

Nix, Daistallia; treaties become part of our law, NOT part of our Constitution. The Constitution overrides EVERYTHING.

Article VI says differently:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Good on them. Bush and his cronies deserve to be punished for their crimes. Although i hope that they wont ask for the death penalty, throwing them into prison on a "life without parole" sentence is much worse for them.

Much better punishment:
Life on minimum wage income.

Oh go on. I'll be fun. Nothing like a few show trials followed by some hangings to restore the US's international standing.

Indeed. What stupidity. There are no "war crimes". When ever I believe there is a bottom to the Pit of BDS, ass-clowns like this Dean come along and prove me wrong.

Indeed. What stupidity. There are no "war crimes". When ever I believe there is a bottom to the Pit of BDS, ass-clowns like this Dean come along and prove me wrong.

Agreed. This is utter bullshittery of the highest order. Everybody keeps talking about "war crimes" and yet I don't hear any specifics on exactly what those war crimes are supposed to be.

This is just another Bush hater trying to sound important and looking for vindication.

does anyone else find it strange that a dean at a defunct law school is going to prosecute someone ???

I mean would that be the DA???

I'd just like to congratulate the Dean on his use of the phrase "High Falutin'", a sadly underused idiom in the modern world.

If nothing else, at least this demonstrates that we still live in a somewhat free society.

Article VI says differently:

I think you're misreading, Corneliu. Article VI says that the THREE aspects - The Constitution, Federal Law and Treaties - are, together, the supreme law of the land, above any other (includng State Law). That section does NOT indicate that Federal Law and Treaties are corporately equal to the Constitution - if they were, Federal Law would not be subject to the Constitution.

Plus, iirc, treaties have been ruled null by the Supreme Court due to their violating the Constitution before.

All of the decisions made they speak of were taken in the course of government actions, and are therefore covered by sovereign immunity.

Where have you been for the past 50 years that you would actually spout such drivel?

There are plenty of other arguments you could be making, but this?

Once again, SoWiBi quietly won this thread.

Even though you're probably right, you just know that this thread will go on for pages to come.

Even though you're probably right, you just know that this thread will go on for pages to come.

That's because people don't want to listen to reason...they just want an excuse to go for each other's throat.

Once again, SoWiBi quietly won this thread.

Thanks, hon. I'm currently very much overdue with several academic projects, which means I invest extraordinary amounts of time and energy in everything that'll distract me from that fact, especially NSG, and I guess it starts to show. ;P

Where have you been for the past 50 years that you would actually spout such drivel?

There are plenty of other arguments you could be making, but this?

Because, whether we like the concept or not, it is a fact.

Sovereign Immunity protects anyone operating in government service from legal prosecution for doing said job. Only if the government involved actively permits the prosecution to go ahead, or said government ceases to exist, can such a prosecution occur.

I am aware that this makes the Nuremburg and Tokyo war crimes trials appear invalid. However, at Nuremburg, they were prosecuting members or servants of a government that had signed the Geneva Conventions - and I consider this sufficient for prosecution given the absence of a valid German government. I do consider the Tokyo trials to be fundamentally invalid.

Because, whether we like the concept or not, it is a fact.

Sovereign Immunity protects anyone operating in government service from legal prosecution for doing said job. Only if the government involved actively permits the prosecution to go ahead, or said government ceases to exist, can such a prosecution occur.

I am aware that this makes the Nuremburg and Tokyo war crimes trials appear invalid. However, at Nuremburg, they were prosecuting members or servants of a government that had signed the Geneva Conventions - and I consider this sufficient for prosecution given the absence of a valid German government. I do consider the Tokyo trials to be fundamentally invalid.

However the point has been made that sovereign immunity does not protect against violations of the constitution.

Seems quixotic to me. Even if they manage to actually get these people in court, I doubt anyone will send them to jail, let alone execute them. Not necessarily for moral reasons, more like the power of money and status.

Not that I have any love for Bush et al., but isn't this kind of like kicking an elderly diseased dog after it's collapsed at your feet?

Not that I have any love for Bush et al., but isn't this kind of like kicking an elderly diseased dog after it's collapsed at your feet?

It depends, if he gets some jail time that might scare some others like him. Although likely, this will just be a waste of money and time. Also, you have a TG!

Not that I have any love for Bush et al., but isn't this kind of like kicking an elderly diseased dog after it's collapsed at your feet?

It would be like prosecuting Clinton for bombing Serbia without UN permission (including civilian targets), and for Clinton bombing a factory in Sudan without anyone's permission.

Thanks, hon. I'm currently very much overdue with several academic projects, which means I invest extraordinary amounts of time and energy in everything that'll distract me from that fact, especially NSG, and I guess it starts to show. ;P

Even so, you're the only one who's poked possible legit holes in this case. Thank you for that.

However the point has been made that sovereign immunity does not protect against violations of the constitution.

Absolutely. However, to my knowledge, there is no prohibition on torture in the constitution - only one against cruel and unusual punishment.

Torture for information is not prohibited. It probably should be, but that is another argument.

Good to hear. I do not support the Death Penalty for anyone, but otherwise this is good. Not that other Administrations don't deserve to face similar charges, but you have to start somewhere.

I would add, however that legal precident in the US would allow for executions if Bush and his cronies were found guilty of certain crimes. I disagree with those laws, but they'd have every legal right to execute for, say, treason(leaking a CIA agent's identity). At least unless I've been grossly misinformed.

Absolutely. However, to my knowledge, there is no prohibition on torture in the constitution - only one against cruel and unusual punishment.

Torture for information is not prohibited. It probably should be, but that is another argument.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The US is a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm) as well as other treaties governing treatment of captured persons. The violations of these treaties, as well as the War Crimes Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html) provide ample justification for prosecution.

Edit: Just to make clear the definition:
Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

Absolutely. However, to my knowledge, there is no prohibition on torture in the constitution - only one against cruel and unusual punishment.

Torture for information is not prohibited. It probably should be, but that is another argument.


oh don't give me that shit, do we REALLY need to trot out the definition of punishment again?

And the contract DOES say something no denying life liberty or property without due process of law.

Are you familiar with that part too?

The US is a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm) as well as other treaties governing treatment of captured persons. The violations of these treaties, as well as the War Crimes Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html) provide ample justification for prosecution.

Edit: Just to make clear the definition:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

Corneliu brought up this article before. All that it means is that, as with Federal laws and the constitution itself, Treaties are the overriding laws of the United States. It does NOT make treaties OR Federal Law equal to the Constitution, NOR does it make violation of a treaty equivalent to violating the Constitution - thus, the argument that the accused have violated the Constitution is nonsense.

oh don't give me that shit, do we REALLY need to trot out the definition of punishment again?

No, you needn't. Definitions are meaningless; we would simply be arguing dictionaries.

And the contract DOES say something no denying life liberty or property without due process of law.

Are you familiar with that part too?

Of course. I am also familiar with this part of Article One, Section 9: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

It's one hell of an out.

No, you needn't. Definitions are meaningless; we would simply be arguing dictionaries.

One would think that if cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited, then the definition of punishment would be quite important.

But if you can't support your own argument, just say so.

Corneliu brought up this article before. All that it means is that, as with Federal laws and the constitution itself, Treaties are the overriding laws of the United States. It does NOT make treaties OR Federal Law equal to the Constitution, NOR does it make violation of a treaty equivalent to violating the Constitution - thus, the argument that the accused have violated the Constitution is nonsense.

The argument that he violated the constitution on the grounds of violating a treaty may be nonsense.

however I think there are many OTHER quite legitimate grounds to argue that he has done so.

One would think that if cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited, then the definition of punishment would be quite important.

But if you can't support your own argument, just say so.

I'll support my own argument. I just don't have time for definition stupidity.

This leads to the exciting possibility of seeing an American President with a bag over his face about to be executed, Saddam-style.

But a very very farfetched one.

I'll support my own argument.

You haven't done very good at it.


I just don't have time for definition stupidity.

How exactly do you intent to argue that torture is not punishment without some attempt to define what punishment means?

Definitions are meaningless; we would simply be arguing dictionaries.

Definitions are (by definition, ha) not meaningless.

The whole point is in fact to assign an accepted meaning to what would otherwise be ambiguous gutteral noises, allowing communication of ideas.

I just don't have time for definition stupidity.

I am curious though exactly what you think the law is, other than arguing over definitions

"We need to prosecute him"
"No can do, national security and all that"
"Pissflaps..."

That's how I envisage this going.

I hate to spoil this circle jerk but what are the charges? I didn't think that terrorists were protected by international law.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/law_school_dean_calls_conference_to_plan_bush_war_crimes_prosecution/

Excellent, excellent.

I certainly hope they do prosecute. That would be a good start to clearing the name of the US.

Yeah lets hang the lot of them:rolleyes:

Regardless I would be willing to bet that they wont be successful in finding them guilty after all appeals have being exhausted and even if they do I am sure that who ever wins the next election will pardon them anyway.

Looks like someone's out to make a name for him/herself - I'd probably do the same if I were stuck at some obscure post in Massachusetts. :p

I am so sick of all of this crap: Bush is War Criminal, The war in Iraq is illegal. It is pretty plan and simple Suddam Hussein violated the 1991 Cease Fire Agreement 15 times from 1992-2003. Like when he continually order military aircraft in the LEGAL UN NO FLY Zone. Also he violated United Nation Resolutions all the time. Such as in 1997 when he kicked out UN Weapons Inspecutors. The US could have invaded Iraq for breaking the cease fire agreement as early as 1994 but we didn't have a president then.

Technically speaking yes. Those were illegal for the laws they were prosecuted under (at least some of them) were not even around when the crimes were committed.

I'll have to admit that i'm not really up to date on the specifics of the Nurnberg trials, and i won't have the time to look it up in the forseeable future.


Also noticed that it was the Iraqis that tried him and not an international court?

And massachusets isn't in the US now ?

The US could have invaded Iraq for breaking the cease fire agreement as early as 1994 but we didn't have a president then.
Correction: we didn't have a president with the testicular fortitude to invade Errahk and share the copious quantities of nose gold he collected during his term.

You haven't done very good at it.

I've knocked down every argument you've put against it.




How exactly do you intent to argue that torture is not punishment without some attempt to define what punishment means?

I just don't want to get into a "this dictionary says this, this dictionary says that" circle jerk. If you can find an official, judicially mandated definition, then feel free.