NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired from the other thread about respect. About Iraq...


The World Health Organization said its study, based on interviews with families, indicated with a 95 percent degree of statistical certainty that between 104,000 and 223,000 civilians had died. It based its estimate of 151,000 deaths on that range.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middleeast/10casualties.html

Edit: Oh theres a book about this:


A political scientist named Michael Haas has just published a book titled George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration's Liability for 269 War Crimes:

Based on information supplied in autobiographical and press sources, the book matches events in Afghanistan, Guantánamo, Iraq , and various secret places of detention with provisions in the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements on war crimes. His compilation is the first to cite a comprehensive list of specific war crimes in four categories-illegality of the decision to go to war, misconduct during war, mistreatment of prisoners of war, and misgovernment in the American occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Haas accuses President Bush of conduct bordering on treason because he reenacted several complaints stated in the Declaration of Independence against England, ignored the Constitution and federal laws, trampled on the American tradition of developing international law to bring order to world politics, and in effect made a Faustian pact with Osama Bin Laden that the intelligence community blames for an increase in world terrorism. Osama Bin Laden remains alive, he reports, because Bush preferred to go after oil-rich Iraq rather than tracking down Al Qaeda leaders, whose uncaptured presence was useful to him in justifying a "war on terror" pursued on a military rather than a criminal basis without restraint from constitutional checks and balances.

The worst war crime cited is the murder of at least 45 prisoners, some but not all by torture. Other heinous crimes include the brutal treatment of thousands of children, some 64 of whom have been detained at Guantánamo. Sources document the use of illegal weapons in the war from cluster bombs to daisy cutters, napalm, white phosphorus, and depleted uranium weapons, some of which have injured and killed American soldiers as well as thousands of innocent civilians. Children playing in areas of Iraq where depleted uranium weapons have been used, but not reported on request from the World Health Organization, have developed leukemia and other serious diseases.

"Bush's violations of the Constitution as well as domestic and international law have besmirched the reputation of the United States," Haas writes. "In so doing, they have accomplished a goal of which the Al Qaeda terrorists only dreamed-to transform the United States into a rogue nation feared by the rest of the world and loved by almost none."

http://crooksandliars.com/node/24929

What purpose would his trial serve?

What purpose would his trial serve?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice

I'm already on record as saying that he should be tried for war crimes, so I'll just get in and state that again.

I'll also reiterate that I doubt he ever will be, because I'm a pessimist.

I'll also reiterate that I doubt he ever will be, because I'm a pessimist.

More like a realist. Unfortunately, I agree with you.

Who exactly killed those civillians? If I recall correctly, it was terrorists. Although Bush's stupidity allowed those things to happen, it doesn't mean he ordered them himself.

Who exactly killed those civillians? If I recall correctly, it was terrorists. Although Bush's stupidity allowed those things to happen, it doesn't mean he ordered them himself.

He did, however, order them to torture prisoners via waterboarding.

Yes, I want to see him tried.

No, I don't think that'll ever happen.

Who exactly killed those civillians? If I recall correctly, it was terrorists. Although Bush's stupidity allowed those things to happen, it doesn't mean he ordered them himself.
That's only true if you are calling Bush a terrorist. You wouldn't be the first.

Who exactly killed those civillians? If I recall correctly, it was terrorists. Although Bush's stupidity allowed those things to happen, it doesn't mean he ordered them himself.


"Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

Who exactly killed those civillians? If I recall correctly, it was terrorists. Although Bush's stupidity allowed those things to happen, it doesn't mean he ordered them himself.

Exactly, Bush is an incompetant moron but he's not a war criminal.

Exactly, Bush is an incompetant moron but he's not a war criminal.
As far as I understand it, when the US signs an international treaty, the treaty becomes enforceable as US law which is binding upon all officials of the US government, and the US is a signatory to international treaties that make it a crime to initiate a war of choice against a country that did not attack us. Iraq did not attack us. The entire war was a war crime, and Bush is responsible for that.

Exactly, Bush is an incompetant moron but he's not a war criminal.

"Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm


And it was also the terrorists who killed civillians but it was because of the occupation that Iraqi police and army collapsed which deteriorated safety.

As far as I understand it, when the US signs an international treaty, the treaty becomes enforceable as US law which is binding upon all officials of the US government, and the US is a signatory to international treaties that make it a crime to initiate a war of choice against a country that did not attack us. Iraq did not attack us. The entire war was a war crime, and Bush is responsible for that.

Ah forgive me, I believed the OP was defining war crimes as wrongful acts committed within the war, not the war as a whole. I can't say I accept the concept of international law and I think that Iraq was justified to remove a dictator, but with your definition of war criminal thats irrelevant.

If you put Bush on Trial, you have to put the entire US government on trial as well.(which won't happen)

Ah forgive me, I believed the OP was defining war crimes as wrongful acts committed within the war, not the war as a whole. I can't say I accept the concept of international law and I think that Iraq was justified to remove a dictator, but with your definition of war criminal thats irrelevant.

The OP was about both.

"Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm


And it was also the terrorists who killed civillians but it was because of the occupation that Iraqi police and army collapsed which deteriorated safety.

Yes I'd put it down to poor planning and lack of expertise, not deliberate attacks against civilians, which is how I'd define warcrimes. Incompetance is not a crime.

The OP was about both.

Then my point still stands.

If you put Bush on Trial, you have to put the entire US government on trial as well.(which won't happen)

Maybe Dick Cheney, Rumsfeldt, and few others but yea that wont be happening.

War crimes and high treason. Let's begin.

Yes I'd put it down to poor planning and lack of expertise, not deliberate attacks against civilians, which is how I'd define warcrimes. Incompetance is not a crime.



Then my point still stands.

Isnt rushing to wars, which always have terrible consequences, a deliberate action?

What I think is irrelevant compared to what will not be done in this matter.

Isnt rushing to wars, which always have terrible consequences, a deliberate action?

Again in my opinion thats incompetance not deliberate action.

Only when the evidence is so insurmountable that it becomes uncomfortable not to so that the trail seems inevitable and not vindictive, fueling bitter partisanship.

I know it seems like it already is, and it's frustrating to wait, "What? You want a glowing sign and dancing girls?" But it's important that it's done with all on board so we all understand, no-this is not the way, and so afterward we can still get the real hard work done. I do not think that the administration was capable of covering themselves enough to avoid it. I very well could be disappointed in that, but it won't work unless the case is crazy crazy strong. That will take a while.

I'm already on record as saying that he should be tried for war crimes, so I'll just get in and state that again.

I'll also reiterate that I doubt he ever will be, because I'm a pessimist.

Darn I have to agree with you...what is the world coming to

Ah forgive me, I believed the OP was defining war crimes as wrongful acts committed within the war, not the war as a whole. I can't say I accept the concept of international law and I think that Iraq was justified to remove a dictator, but with your definition of war criminal thats irrelevant.
I'm expressing my own views, not speaking for the OP. I do accept the concept of international law for several reasons, but most relevantly because the US government accepts the concept. This is evidenced by the fact that, according to US law, when the US signs international treaties, they gain the full force and effect of US law. That is why I say that, in my opinion, Bush's choice to launch the war was, in and of itself, a criminal act.

Again in my opinion thats incompetance not deliberate action.

I disagree.

But even if it's simply incompetance, does that excuse Bush? Does incompetance excuse medical malpractices for example? He was the president of US, thats a great responsibility, but he was negligent WHILE WAGING A WAR.

Again in my opinion thats incompetance not deliberate action.

So, the torture of minors in US 'enemy combatant' camps was a product of incompetence?

"Ooops. I didn't realise I was waterboarding you!"

I disagree.

But even if it's simply incompetance, does that excuse Bush? Does incompetance excuse medical malpractices for example? He was the president of US, thats a great responsibility, but he was negligent WHILE WAGING A WAR.

Incompetance of a President during a war is unforgivable yes, but it's not a crime.

Maybe. But to be honest, I think we've got better things to do with our time than to give W. any more attention.

Incompetance of a President during a war is unforgivable yes, but it's not a crime.
Incompetence doesn't have to be a crime, if the actions committed by the incompetent person are crimes.

So, the torture of minors in US 'enemy combatant' camps was a product of incompetence?

"Ooops. I didn't realise I was waterboarding you!"

Wasn't that legal at the time? waterboarding that is, if it's not illegal its not a crime.

Incompetence doesn't have to be a crime, if the actions committed by the incompetent person are crimes.

Enlighten me, what crimes did GWB commit?

Wasn't that legal at the time? waterboarding that is, if it's not illegal its not a crime.No, it was declared a crime, by the United States, during World War II. And not only did we prosecute the Japanese for it, we have since prosecuted US soldiers for doing it.

No, it was declared a crime, by the United States, during World War II. And not only did we prosecute the Japanese for it, we have since prosecuted US soldiers for doing it.

Oh, I thought Obama just issued a executive order banning it?

Maybe. But to be honest, I think we've got better things to do with our time than to give W. any more attention.
I have to disagree partially. Right now, we have more urgent things to do -- such as cleaning up Bush's messes and getting through the economic crisis.

But that doesn't mean that we should just shrug off what Bush and his cronies did. I firmly believe, based on what I witnessed of them in office, that their war actions were criminal, that they violated the Constitution in ways that are criminal derelictions of their duties while in office, and that they committed acts of political corruption. Not even investigating their suspicious actions to see if there's really a prosecutable case there sends a very, very bad message to other politicians -- basically that they can do whatever they like without fear of consequences. If we have this massive cloud of suspicion hanging over that administration and we do nothing at all about it, we may as well officially endorse political corruption for all.

Let's deal with our present urgent issues, but let's not forget to take some time in (not too distant) future to set the record straight and hold the guilty accountable.

Wasn't that legal at the time? waterboarding that is, if it's not illegal its not a crime.
It has always been illegal under US law. Alberto Gonzalez and that Yee guy were wrong.

Enlighten me, what crimes did GWB commit?
Um...I already told you one, and it's a pretty big one. Have you forgotten already?

Oh, I thought Obama just issued a executive order banning it?
That executive order bans the practice of using any methods other than those officially endorsed by the US military. That never included waterboarding. The order effectively is telling people in the government to stop breaking that law.

EDIT: Tell me, if Obama had just issued an executive order saying that government officials are not allowed to rob banks, would that make you think that bank robbery had previously been legal?

EDIT: Tell me, if Obama had just issued an executive order saying that government officials are not allowed to rob banks, would that make you think that bank robbery had previously been legal?

No but I assumed as it had been practised under GWB that it was legal. If he allowed it when it was illegal then he should be tried for breaking whatever law prohibits it.

No but I assumed as it had been practised under GWB that it was legal. If he allowed it when it was illegal then he should be tried for breaking whatever law prohibits it.
Ah, I see. Cool.

i was discussing this with my sister today..

well ok it wasnt more about surveillance of US citizens inside the country without warrants but the principle applies to every law that george bush and his cronies have broken

i want a thorough investigation. if george bush has committed prosecutable war crimes, i want him prosecuted. if he is convicted, i would be OK with his (life) sentence being commuted. because...where are you going to put him?

i want everyone investigated, charged and tried from the very top to the very bottom.

where are you going to put him?
There's a nice detention center in Guantanamo Bay which will soon have a lot of empty space.

There's a nice detention center in Guantanamo Bay which will soon have a lot of empty space.
i heard it was going to be closed soon.


yay!

Tbh, I'd much rather put his lackeys (or he was their lackey, whatever your view) should be the ones put on trial. Rummy, I'm looking at you. Cheney, Rove...you, guys too. Alberto Gonzalez? I'm not leaving you out.

No, he shouldn't.

"...in effect made a Faustian pact with Osama Bin Laden that the intelligence community blames for an increase in world terrorism. Osama Bin Laden remains alive, he reports, because Bush preferred to go after oil-rich Iraq rather than tracking down Al Qaeda leaders, whose uncaptured presence was useful to him in justifying a "war on terror" pursued on a military rather than a criminal basis without restraint from constitutional checks and balances."

Weak. Very weak. Bush wanted to go after Iraq for a whole host of shitty reasons--not so as to provide an excuse to not catch bin Laden and perpetuate the war on terror.

Yes, he should. He fully admitted to using torture on prisoners of war. For that, he should indeed be tried.

Why not use the standards set by the United States of America for exactly such a situation, why won't you?

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace? Check.
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace? Check.
3. War crimes? Check.
4. Crimes against humanity? Check.

As President of the United States and Commander in Chief, ex-President Bush and his administration are directly responsible for things actively done under their watch, ordered by them, supported by them, or not stopped by them.

As I remember, those indicted with those 4 points all went to the gallows. http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/hanged.gif

So, putting them on trial which may or may not end in a jail sentence - not so bad after all, eh?

As far as I understand it, when the US signs an international treaty, the treaty becomes enforceable as US law which is binding upon all officials of the US government, and the US is a signatory to international treaties that make it a crime to initiate a war of choice against a country that did not attack us. Iraq did not attack us. The entire war was a war crime, and Bush is responsible for that.
Not single-handedly, though. It was the idea of other members of his administration too, if not more so. I don't quite recall the specifics, but I do recall watching the news almost every weeknight around the months leading up to the invasion, and it seemed as though certain members of the administration were more so insisting Iraq had WMD than others were. But still, who's to say how things would have turned out with someone else in office? I've heard it used to be the Democrats who were associated with support for invading Iraq; who's to say Al Gore wouldn't have used 9/11 to justify invading Iraq given the same circumstances and timing?


Anyway, as for the topic at hand, if he's going to be presumed innocent until proven guilty then of COURSE he should be tried for war crimes. If there's reasonable doubt as to his guilt, then wouldn't he be given the benefit of a doubt? If there isn't, then doesn't that suggest guilt? And if he wouldn't be presumed innocent until proven guilty then perhaps that's a problem in itself that needs to be fixed.

Please don't forget his two friends of the Azores' Trio, Blair and Aznar. If Bush deserves a trial, they too.

Please don't forget his two friends of the Azores' Trio, Blair and Aznar. If Bush deserves a trial, they too.
Hadn't heard of Aznar before, but yeah, it seems like people are focusing too much on Bush himself. I made a similar point earlier about other members of his adminstration being partly responsible for it as well.

Hadn't heard of Aznar before, but yeah, it seems like people are focusing too much on Bush himself. I made a similar point earlier about other members of his adminstration being partly responsible for it as well.
If you were familiar with my posting history, you would know that my view of the matter is that, when it comes to investigations potentially leading to prosecutions and convictions for war crimes, I say, "the more the merrier." By no means should the search for justice begin and end with Bush alone. There were plenty of players in this bloody farce.

If you were familiar with my posting history, you would know that my view of the matter is that, when it comes to investigations potentially leading to prosecutions and convictions for war crimes, I say, "the more the merrier." By no means should the search for justice begin and end with Bush alone. There were plenty of players in this bloody farce.
No doubt. I get the impression people are just focused on Bush because he's supposedly the main leader of the main country involved.

Maybe. A better bet would probably be Obstruction of Justice.

Either way, he should be investigated, and if the evidence warrants, tried. Damn bipartisanship. The principle that no one is above the law must be upheld, and the criminal and radical elements of the GOP must be held accountable and their influence broken, or we may yet go down the road to eventual civil war and dictatorship. Be it ten years from now or two hundred.

Just then I thought of a quote I heard of years ago that I thought might be relevant:

"Did it ever occur to you once [Bush] that in just 27 months and 2 days from now, when you leave office, some irresponsible future president would be entitled by the actions of your own hand to declare the status of "unlawful enemy combatant" not for John Walker Lindh, but for George Walker Bush?" - Keith Olbermann

Please don't forget his two friends of the Azores' Trio, Blair and Aznar. If Bush deserves a trial, they too.

There's also the Axis of Complicity, which comprises Bush, Blair and John Howard.

I disagree.

But even if it's simply incompetance, does that excuse Bush? Does incompetance excuse medical malpractices for example? He was the president of US, thats a great responsibility, but he was negligent WHILE WAGING A WAR.

Correction. Conducting a war, no matter the justification or how grossly mismanaged, is not a war crime. That cheapens the meaning. Civilians and militia taken from the theater of battle and having them tortured, on the other hand, is a war crime.

Bush is not a War Criminal. Hitler was a war criminal. Slobodan Milošević, was a war criminal. Pol Pot was a war criminal.

Bush is not a War Criminal. Hitler was a war criminal. Slobodan Milošević, was a war criminal. Pol Pot was a war criminal.
And on what basis do you claim that Bush is NOT a war criminal? Sure he probably wouldn't be to the same extent as those you listed, but how do you know he wouldn't be? I say put him on trial and find out.

Bush is not a War Criminal. Hitler was a war criminal. Slobodan Milošević, was a war criminal. Pol Pot was a war criminal.

Why Bush isn't a war criminal? Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed in a senseless war, including a spanish journalist who was fired by an amrican tank because has was recording their entry into Bagdad.

By the way, Pol Pot isn't a war criminal, he's a genocide.

Why Bush isn't a war criminal? Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed in a senseless war, including a spanish journalist who was fired by an amrican tank because has was recording their entry into Bagdad.

Lots of people dying doesn't make a war crime. A soldier killing an innocent person is a war crime, but not one that the president is accountable for unless he ordered it. Millions were killed in Viet-Nam, but Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon weren't prosecuted; consider the bombing tactics of that war, and then call an errant modern-day missile a "war crime." You'd have to be nuts. Unless some significant new evidence is revealed, it'd be an enormous waste of time and money trying to prosecute him.

Unless some significant new evidence is revealed, it'd be an enormous waste of time and money trying to prosecute him.

I think his very own statement of having been aware and allowing a banned practice of torture to be used on prisoners of war is quite sufficient evidence to begin a trial.
I'm worried about what else would be revealed during the trial itself, once you've got people really digging into Bush's administration and dragging out the corpses from the basement...

But, being realistic, I don't believe it will ever happen. The small ones get hanged, the big ones don't get hassled, as the old German saying goes.

Don't hold your breath. Even assuming it was feasible and/or likely(which is a monster assumption, by the way)B. Hussein Obama is at least savvy enough not to hand the opposition a giant stick to beat him with.

Lots of people dying doesn't make a war crime. A soldier killing an innocent person is a war crime, but not one that the president is accountable for unless he ordered it. Millions were killed in Viet-Nam, but Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon weren't prosecuted; consider the bombing tactics of that war, and then call an errant modern-day missile a "war crime." You'd have to be nuts. Unless some significant new evidence is revealed, it'd be an enormous waste of time and money trying to prosecute him.

Then, why is Slobodan Milosevic a war criminal?

I think that promoting a senseless war, and wipe a country killing thousands of civilians with no reason make them war criminals. And I also apply that to Ehud Olmert.

Don't hold your breath. Even assuming it was feasible and/or likely(which is a monster assumption, by the way)B. Hussein Obama is at least savvy enough not to hand the opposition a giant stick to beat him with.

*sigh* Very true. I still vividly remember Bush ranting about the International War Crime court in The Hague when it was set up... he must have been worried about himself appearing before it, even back then.
But that's the way of the world, isn't it? Justice and punishment is only handed out to the poor and weak guys, the bullies always get away with it.

Then, why is Slobodan Milosevic a war criminal?

I think that promoting a senseless war, and wipe a country killing thousands of civilians with no reason make them war criminals. And I also apply that to Ehud Olmert.

Milosevic was tried for attempted genocide, I believe.

Do 'war crimes' have to be commited during a real war, rather than a 'war against terror'? Did Bush (and crony Blair) ever actually declare war against Iraq?
My personal view is that we need a full investigation into how the hell we allowed someone to start an unjustified and illegal (by that I me not sanctioned by the UN) 'war' against another country. Saddam was not a threat to us, it was just unfinished business from Bush Seniors folly into Iraq.
If Bush knew about the illegal activites going on (waterboarding etc) then he should be held accountable just like the director of a business can be.
I personally can't see him ever facing any action but we need to take the learning from this to stop it ever happening again.
Hopefully Obama can help restore the US image to where it should be, rather than to where it has been dragged
As for Blair, he would just grin inanely and say he was following orders

I think his very own statement of having been aware and allowing a banned practice of torture to be used on prisoners of war is quite sufficient evidence to begin a trial.
I'm worried about what else would be revealed during the trial itself, once you've got people really digging into Bush's administration and dragging out the corpses from the basement...

But, being realistic, I don't believe it will ever happen. The small ones get hanged, the big ones don't get hassled, as the old German saying goes.

You don't think he has an out for waterboarding? He'll claim that he approved a different form of waterboarding than the kind that was banned, which is true, I believe. The prosecution will have to prove that there isn't a significant difference, and Bush, not being any kind of scientist or having had the time to independently verify what the DoD told him about specifics, won't be held accountable for knowing the difference. I don't feel like spending millions of tax dollars to have that argument heard.

Do 'war crimes' have to be commited during a real war, rather than a 'war against terror'? Did Bush (and crony Blair) ever actually declare war against Iraq?
My personal view is that we need a full investigation into how the hell we allowed someone to start an unjustified and illegal (by that I me not sanctioned by the UN) 'war' against another country. Saddam was not a threat to us, it was just unfinished business from Bush Seniors folly into Iraq.
If Bush knew about the illegal activites going on (waterboarding etc) then he should be held accountable just like the director of a business can be.
I personally can't see him ever facing any action but we need to take the learning from this to stop it ever happening again.
Hopefully Obama can help restore the US image to where it should be, rather than to where it has been dragged
As for Blair, he would just grin inanely and say he was following orders

Indeed, the fact that this war is illegal is what makes me think that Bush and Blair may be considered war criminals.Wipe a country killing a lot of civilians for no reason, at least for me, is a war crime.

As for Aznar, he didn't send troops to the war, but he did it late to support the US in the postwar, but he was certainly an accomplice.

You don't think he has an out for waterboarding? He'll claim that he approved a different form of waterboarding than the kind that was banned, which is true, I believe. The prosecution will have to prove that there isn't a significant difference, and Bush, not being any kind of scientist or having had the time to independently verify what the DoD told him about specifics, won't be held accountable for knowing the difference. I don't feel like spending millions of tax dollars to have that argument heard.

So claiming ignorance should excuse from prosecution? Sorry, I cannot agree with that.
If you are responsible and in charge, you are also responsible to inform yourself of what it is going on and what exactly it is you are giving your ok to.

*sigh* Very true. I still vividly remember Bush ranting about the International War Crime court in The Hague when it was set up... he must have been worried about himself appearing before it, even back then.

I seriously doubt he was ever worried about having to justify himself before the International War Crimes Court, of all things.

I'm already on record as saying that he should be tried for war crimes, so I'll just get in and state that again.

I'll also reiterate that I doubt he ever will be, because I'm a pessimist.

"Pessimist" is a term invented by optimists. It translates as "realistic, well-informed person".

Milosevic was tried for attempted genocide, I believe.

I think so. It was about the Srebrenica massacre, too.

So claiming ignorance should excuse from prosecution? Sorry, I cannot agree with that.
If you are responsible and in charge, you are also responsible to inform yourself of what it is going on and what exactly it is you are giving your ok to.

He isn't claiming ignorance, like you said. He says a few people were waterboarded. He'll claim that he was told the practice was legal because it was a refined, safer form of a previously-banned practice. He might even be right. Probably not, but in wartime he'll be given the benefit of the doubt. It's not realistic to hold the president accountable for all new practices adopted or invented during a war, whether it's an interrogation technique, new bomb, new grenade, etc. It'll be hard, then, to convince anyone that Bush should've known the difference, unless there's a stack of memos out there somewhere saying "there's no functional difference," or something like that.

"Pessimist" is a term invented by optimists. It translates as "realistic, well-informed person".

That isn't always like this. Many times "realistic, well-informed person" is between "optimist" and "pessimist". If you think that is because you don't know enough Valencians.

I seriously doubt he was ever worried about having to justify himself before the International War Crimes Court, of all things.

Then why was he shouting and screaming about it like banshee?
The rest of the world appreciated the establishment of the court, welcomed the chance of being able to independently try war criminals, only Mr Bush threw a fit about it and had to be given a lolli to be quiet again.

He isn't claiming ignorance, like you said. He says a few people were waterboarded. He'll claim that he was told the practice was legal because it was a refined, safer form of a previously-banned practice. He might even be right. Probably not, but in wartime he'll be given the benefit of the doubt. It's not realistic to hold the president accountable for all new practices adopted or invented during a war, whether it's an interrogation technique, new bomb, new grenade, etc. It'll be hard, then, to convince anyone that Bush should've known the difference, unless there's a stack of memos out there somewhere saying "there's no functional difference," or something like that.

So you claim he could have ok'ed it without fully knowing what it was, without knowing if it was legal or not?
Still not convinced, sorry. If it's a legal practice, he can look it up or send some lawyer to do it for him. If there's no record of it being legal, chances are it isn't.

Letting him get away like that would be like the boss of Enron saying "Yes, but what would I know about it? I'm not an accountant, and my accounting team told me it was all perfectly legal", and getting away with it.

Please don't forget his two friends of the Azores' Trio, Blair and Aznar. If Bush deserves a trial, they too.

Aznar is one motherf*cker I would gladly like seeing being tried for condoning Spanish troops to go and invade Afghanistan in joint force with the US. He may have been my president, but he was an ass and plunged Spain into a 2nd or 3rd dark age.

So you claim he could have ok'ed it without fully knowing what it was, without knowing if it was legal or not?
Still not convinced, sorry. If it's a legal practice, he can look it up or send some lawyer to do it for him. If there's no record of it being legal, chances are it isn't.

I fully agree. Everyone else on the planet seemd to know it was happening, so he should have too. Someone in his position should have then questioned what it was and assessed how legal it was.
I'm sure he has a bigger legal team than Monty Burns:p

Then why was he shouting and screaming about it like banshee? The rest of the world appreciated the establishment of the court, welcomed the chance of being able to independently try war criminals, only Mr Bush threw a fit about it and had to be given a lolli to be quiet again.

If he was as apopolectic as you claim, it's probably because Americans are prickly about national sovreignity. I said he wasn't all that worried because like the other International Cloud Cuckoo Lands that have been established, it's not really taken that seriously by the U.S government.

If he was as apopolectic as you claim, it's probably because Americans are prickly about national sovreignity. I said he wasn't all that worried because like the other International Cloud Cuckoo Lands that have been established, it's not really taken that seriously by the U.S government.

"We will judge, but won't allow anyone else to judge us"... yes, that would pretty much sum up the Bush administration, you're right there.

One would hope they might eventually figure out that cooperation can get you an awful lot further than confrontation. But it might take them a while longer.

Do you want to start World War III?

No doubt. I get the impression people are just focused on Bush because he's supposedly the main leader of the main country involved.
I think a lot of people focus on Bush because he is the leader of the whole group and typing one name is easier than typing many names and easier than spelling "administration" after "the Bush" every time you want to talk about this.

Do you want to start World War III?
No, but I wouldn't mind watching you predict it for a few years. :p

As far as I understand it, when the US signs an international treaty, the treaty becomes enforceable as US law which is binding upon all officials of the US government, and the US is a signatory to international treaties that make it a crime to initiate a war of choice against a country that did not attack us. Iraq did not attack us. The entire war was a war crime, and Bush is responsible for that.

^^ this ^^

Yes, but for what happened in Cuba, not what happened in Iraq. Trying to tie anything that happened on the ground in Iraq to Bush explicitly would be the grandest exercise in futility. The authorization of torture at Guantanamo is what he should go to prison for.

Here's a question - even before the last election, there were more than enough Democrats to impeach Bush.

War crimes certainly would qualify as an impeachable offense - so why didn't they do it?

Yes, but for what happened in Cuba, not what happened in Iraq. Trying to tie anything that happened on the ground in Iraq to Bush explicitly would be the grandest exercise in futility. The authorization of torture at Guantanamo is what he should go to prison for.

Exactly.

Here's a question - even before the last election, there were more than enough Democrats to impeach Bush.

War crimes certainly would qualify as an impeachable offense - so why didn't they do it?
because the impeachment of bill clinton showed just how bad an idea impeachment is.

and that there is little sense in bringing government to a screeching halt for the remaining 2 years of bush's term in office.

and he hadnt admitted to having made the decision on torture then.

Here's a question - even before the last election, there were more than enough Democrats to impeach Bush.

War crimes certainly would qualify as an impeachable offense - so why didn't they do it?

They prolly didnt have the guts (ie: didnt wanna lose votes). Democrats seem spineless in many matters. They didnt stand up and request more through planning or more time for weapons inspectors but instead they also approved the Iraq war.

They prolly didnt have the guts (ie: didnt wanna lose votes). Democrats seem spineless in many matters. They didnt stand up and request more through planning or more time for weapons inspectors but instead they also approved the Iraq war.

What amazes me is that back in 2002 when Democrats were notified that waterboarding was being done, the Democrats took years to get up the nerve to scream about it.

What amazes me is that back in 2002 when Democrats were notified that waterboarding was being done, the Democrats took years to get up the nerve to scream about it.

Yes the Democrats also suck but they are still much better than Republicans.

that depends on whether he's actually committed a war crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_criminal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_criminal#International_Criminal_Court

I'd say maybe, since it seems he may have violated the following.

the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war
Torture or inhumane treatment
Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial

What amazes me is that back in 2002 when Democrats were notified that waterboarding was being done, the Democrats took years to get up the nerve to scream about it.

Hell I wouldn't wanna Scream about Illegal Water boarding . . .you might get water boarded!

that depends on whether he's actually committed a war crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_criminal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_criminal#International_Criminal_Court

I'd say maybe, since it seems he may have violated the following.

the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war
Torture or inhumane treatment
Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
Um . . . Which prisoners of war though?

Um . . . Which prisoners of war though?

I guess those in Guantanamo.

It will only happen in the LSD trips of deluded leftist idiots.

And when the US suffers its next terrorist attack, due to the incompetence and stupidity of the Dark Lord, nobody will ever ask that question again. Real Americans, however, will be asking "How soon can we violently and painfully exterminate the bastards responsible and all their supporters?"

I guess those in Guantanamo.

There were and are no prisoners of war in Gitmo.

There were and are no prisoners of war in Gitmo.

Then it beats me. *shrug*

I guess those in Guantanamo.

DO they actually count as Prisoners of war though? I mean no uniform etc.

It will only happen in the LSD trips of deluded leftist idiots.

LSD trips huh?

And when the US suffers its next terrorist attack, due to the incompetence and stupidity of the Dark Lord, nobody will ever ask that question again

Let me know if you come down to reality, Frodo.

It will only happen in the LSD trips of deluded leftist idiots.

And when the US suffers its next terrorist attack, due to the incompetence and stupidity of the Dark Lord, nobody will ever ask that question again. Real Americans, however, will be asking "How soon can we violently and painfully exterminate the bastards responsible and all their supporters?"
you lost . . .get over it already

DO they actually count as Prisoners of war though? I mean no uniform etc.

Let me check because I really don't know.

Let me check because I really don't know.

TY Nanatsu :D

TY Nanatsu :D

For what I can glean from the Wiki info (which I'll provide a link to), those being held at Gitmo are only considered normal prisoners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Detention_of_prisoners

For what I can glean from the Wiki info (which I'll provide a link to), those being held at Gitmo are only considered normal prisoners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Detention_of_prisoners

Fair enough. What would that mean about the treatment of "Regular Prisoners" at GitMo?

that depends on whether he's actually committed a war crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_criminal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_criminal#International_Criminal_Court

I'd say maybe, since it seems he may have violated the following.

the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war
Torture or inhumane treatment
Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial

You forget "Crime of aggression".

Fair enough. What would that mean about the treatment of "Regular Prisoners" at GitMo?

No idea, but what makes me wonder is that Bush accepted he approved of the use of waterboarding on war prisoners. Where are these prisoners being held?

It will only happen in the LSD trips of deluded leftist idiots.

And when the US suffers its next terrorist attack, due to the incompetence and stupidity of the Dark Lord, nobody will ever ask that question again. Real Americans, however, will be asking "How soon can we violently and painfully exterminate the bastards responsible and all their supporters?"

...ignoring the fact that you helped create them, and the violent response only will cause further attacks, and then you can go kill some more, only to have someone take revenge on you etc etc.

Oh, btw, you 're not a "Real American". Don't flatter yourself.

DO they actually count as Prisoners of war though? I mean no uniform etc.

If they're not prisoners of war, they're civilian prisoners. So choose: War crime, or Crime against Humanity.

It will only happen in the LSD trips of deluded leftist idiots.

And when the US suffers its next terrorist attack, due to the incompetence and stupidity of the Dark Lord, nobody will ever ask that question again. Real Americans, however, will be asking "How soon can we violently and painfully exterminate the bastards responsible and all their supporters?"

http://i721.photobucket.com/albums/ww214/Viperlord/Motivators/arnoldsays.jpg?t=1232742319

It will only happen in the LSD trips of deluded leftist idiots.

And when the US suffers its next terrorist attack, due to the incompetence and stupidity of the Dark Lord, nobody will ever ask that question again. Real Americans, however, will be asking "How soon can we violently and painfully exterminate the bastards responsible and all their supporters?"

So far, this is my favorite contribution to this thread. Aside from mine, of course.

Yeah but it totally won't happen.

What amazes me is that back in 2002 when Democrats were notified that waterboarding was being done, the Democrats took years to get up the nerve to scream about it.
How is this amazing? The US democrats are weak anyway, and MUCH weaker in 2002 which was when we still gave America some patience with September 11th having just happened and all.

Um . . . Which prisoners of war though?

I was thinking of people in Gitmo.

Fair enough. What would that mean about the treatment of "Regular Prisoners" at GitMo?
We're not allowed to torture regular prisoners, either. Inasmuch as torture is illegal in its own right, we're not allowed to torture anyone.

No idea, but what makes me wonder is that Bush accepted he approved of the use of waterboarding on war prisoners. Where are these prisoners being held?
Well, that little slip was just evidence that Bush & Co. have been bullshitting all along when they played their little shell game with the status of those prisoners. Of course, we all already knew that.

If they're not prisoners of war, they're civilian prisoners. So choose: War crime, or Crime against Humanity.
Pretty much sums it up.

Well, that little slip was just evidence that Bush & Co. have been bullshitting all along when they played their little shell game with the status of those prisoners. Of course, we all already knew that.

So it seems. More reason then to bring Bush and his goons in front of an international court and try them for crimes against humanity.

So it seems. More reason then to bring Bush and his goons in front of an international court and try them for crimes against humanity.

I think they should be tried in an American court - given that it's a fair and proper trial, of course.

I think they should be tried in an American court - given that it's a fair and proper trial, of course.

But I think the rest of the world should ask the same thing the US asks. Bush should be tried on an international forum, something like La Haya. Being tried in an American court isn't fair. At least not to those who suffer under him, those who were water-boarded.

But I think the rest of the world should ask the same thing the US asks. Bush should be tried on an international forum, something like La Haya. Being tried in an American court isn't fair. At least not to those who suffer under him, those who were water-boarded.

The US is a sovereign nation. We reserve the right to try our own nationals in our own courts. Keep your Hague.

The US is a sovereign nation. We reserve the right to try our own nationals in our own courts. Keep your Hague.

Ah, but it's ok to try criminals from other parts of the world according to your standards, eh? The US isn't the only sovereign nation out there, you know.

As far as I understand it, when the US signs an international treaty, the treaty becomes enforceable as US law which is binding upon all officials of the US government, and the US is a signatory to international treaties that make it a crime to initiate a war of choice against a country that did not attack us. Iraq did not attack us. The entire war was a war crime, and Bush is responsible for that.
Exactly!!

Ah, but it's ok to try criminals from other parts of the world according to your standards, eh? The US isn't the only sovereign nation out there, you know.

Terrorists are extraterritorial entities. They might belong to a nation but as long as they do not act as representatives of that nation I have no qualms about trying them in our courts.

Terrorists are extraterritorial entities. They might belong to a nation but as long as they do not act as representatives of that nation I have no qualms about trying them in our courts.

George W. Bush terrorized the people of Iraq when he invaded their country. That's, right there, terrorism. Therefore, Bush should be tried as a terrorist, acting in the name of a nation.

George W. Bush terrorized the people of Iraq when he invaded their country. That's, right there, terrorism. Therefore, Bush should be tried as a terrorist, acting in the name of a nation.

Bush invaded Iraq legally with an organized armed forces. There is no official definition of terrorism, but that certainly doesn't fall into anyone's.

No, he shouldn't be tried.

But for the hell of it, who would try him? How would they arrest him?

Because if its any other organization or country besides the US trying him you can forget it. The US wouldn't stand for it. If the Hague attempted to prosecute him there would be war. Or at least several special forces operations.

Let Bush be tried in the US by an International Military Tribunal, somewhat like the Nuremberg Trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials). :)

Let Bush be tried in the US by an International Military Tribunal, somewhat like the Nuremberg Trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials). :)

Let's hope he doesn't die before they can overturn the conviction on appeal.

Let's hope he doesn't die before they can overturn the conviction on appeal.
Unfortunately, I agree with Muravyets, in that there won't be any trial, let alone any conviction.

Bush invaded Iraq legally with an organized armed forces. There is no official definition of terrorism, but that certainly doesn't fall into anyone's.
The bolded part is a point of serious and bitter contention. There are many (not just in NSG) who believe the invasion was NOT legal, either by international or US law. Just because you dress your army up in uniforms, that doesn't mean you get to do whatever you like, however you like, and call it legal.

No, he shouldn't be tried.
Why not?

But for the hell of it, who would try him?
A court of law, just like anyone else accused of a crime. What kind of court would depend on what he was charged with.

How would they arrest him?
The same way anyone else gets arrested -- via a warrant, issued by a judge on the basis of charges brought by a prosecutor, and executed by law enforcement officers.

Because if its any other organization or country besides the US trying him you can forget it. The US wouldn't stand for it.
Are you sure of that?

If the Hague attempted to prosecute him there would be war. Or at least several special forces operations.
Ha! Why?

The bolded part is a point of serious and bitter contention.
I disagree. It is fully within the rights of the President to order troops into an attack.

I disagree. It is fully within the rights of the President to order troops into an attack.
Are you kidding with such a simplistic answer?

First off, the president must have the approval of Congress before he can initiate any war action. He must apply to Congress and make his case for them to authorize him to use military force.

The case he made to Congress for Iraq was fraudulent. Bush lied to Congress about the threat posed by Iraq. Lying to Congress is a crime.

Since he got his authorization by committing a crime, everything that followed necessarily out of that initiatory crime is also a crime. He deliberately misled Congress in order to get authorization to use force. That makes the invasion illegal.

Also, US law prohibits us from initiating attacks against countries that are not threatening us. Iraq was not threatening us. Therefore, the invasion was illegal on that score, too.

lol

So you claim he could have ok'ed it without fully knowing what it was, without knowing if it was legal or not?
Still not convinced, sorry. If it's a legal practice, he can look it up or send some lawyer to do it for him. If there's no record of it being legal, chances are it isn't.

Letting him get away like that would be like the boss of Enron saying "Yes, but what would I know about it? I'm not an accountant, and my accounting team told me it was all perfectly legal", and getting away with it.

What's so hard to understand? If the Sec. Def. comes to Bush, or any president, with a new grenade or bomb or bullet or interrogation technique that they claim is humane, you expect him to field test it himself to be sure? He can't realistically do that. He has to rely on experts who may be wrong, and whether you consider it ethical or not, that should and probably does limit his liability. If he knew otherwise, then he should be prosecuted. I'm saying I don't really want to waste the time and money it'd take to find all that out, not because the president should be immune from prosecution, but because there would be no practical benefit. Now that the practice has been banned formally, there's really nothing to accomplish.

What's so hard to understand? If the Sec. Def. comes to Bush, or any president, with a new grenade or bomb or bullet or interrogation technique that they claim is humane, you expect him to field test it himself to be sure? He can't realistically do that. He has to rely on experts who may be wrong, and whether you consider it ethical or not, that should and probably does limit his liability. If he knew otherwise, then he should be prosecuted. I'm saying I don't really want to waste the time and money it'd take to find all that out, not because the president should be immune from prosecution, but because there would be no practical benefit. Now that the practice has been banned formally, there's really nothing to accomplish.

Nothing to accomplish by upholding the principle that the law applies to everyone, even our Presidents?

Nothing to accomplish by upholding the principle that the law applies to everyone, even our Presidents?

Nothing to accomplish by charging someone with doing something that falls into a legal gray area, now that the main issue has been resolved.

The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what should happen(and that is open to apparently endless debate). Here's what going to happen: Nothing. Because no-one in the world(except the US itself, we've done it twice) has the stones to try and put a US President on trial for...well, anything, really. And even if they did, no-one in the world has the muscle to make it stick.

So, as much as the idea of Pres. Bush standing in the dock of whatever kangaroo court can be dreamed up warms the heart of your average European leftist, it's just not going to happen. You'll have to file it in the 'Fond Pipe Dreams' section, along with 'the perfect welfare state' and 'the tolerant Moslem society' and move on with your life.

The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what should happen(and that is open to apparently endless debate). Here's what going to happen: Nothing. Because no-one in the world(except the US itself, we've done it twice) has the stones to try and put a US President on trial for...well, anything, really. And even if they did, no-one in the world has the muscle to make it stick.

So, as much as the idea of Pres. Bush standing in the dock of whatever kangaroo court can be dreamed up warms the heart of your average European leftist, it's just not going to happen. You'll have to file it in the 'Fond Pipe Dreams' section, along with 'the perfect welfare state' and 'the tolerant Moslem society' and move on with your life.

wow, you managed to take a topic utterly unrelated to either class or race and insert both racism and classism.

You must have been the top of your class in neo-con school. Did your white hood come with a blue ribbon?

You must have been the top of your class in neo-con school. Did your white hood come with a blue ribbon?

The truth hurts, don't it? Put a crack in your rose colored lenses, did it? Speaking of, nobody I know drinks Blue Ribbon, you can't hardly find it anymore. Personally, I prefer Sam Adams, but I'm not picky about it.

The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what should happen(and that is open to apparently endless debate). Here's what going to happen: Nothing. Because no-one in the world(except the US itself, we've done it twice) has the stones to try and put a US President on trial for...well, anything, really. And even if they did, no-one in the world has the muscle to make it stick.

So, as much as the idea of Pres. Bush standing in the dock of whatever kangaroo court can be dreamed up warms the heart of your average European leftist, it's just not going to happen. You'll have to file it in the 'Fond Pipe Dreams' section, along with 'the perfect welfare state' and 'the tolerant Moslem society' and move on with your life.

Damn straight.

edit:

Also, Pabst Blue Ribbon is pretty easy to find where I live. Its the best of the cheap stuff!

The Moslem part seems a bit iffy, though.

wow, you managed to take a topic utterly unrelated to either class or race and insert both racism and classism.

You must have been the top of your class in neo-con school. Did your white hood come with a blue ribbon?


I smell flamebait here.

And a flat out flame.

Also, Pabst Blue Ribbon is pretty easy to find where I live. Its the best of the cheap stuff!

You want cheap beer around here, it's Milwaukee's Best Ice, which...damn. There's a reason they'll sell you a two-fer for 4.99.

The Moslem part seems a bit iffy, though

I'm not saying anything they haven't repeatedly said themselves.

The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what should happen(and that is open to apparently endless debate). Here's what going to happen: Nothing. Because no-one in the world(except the US itself, we've done it twice) has the stones to try and put a US President on trial for...well, anything, really. And even if they did, no-one in the world has the muscle to make it stick.

So, as much as the idea of Pres. Bush standing in the dock of whatever kangaroo court can be dreamed up warms the heart of your average European leftist, it's just not going to happen. You'll have to file it in the 'Fond Pipe Dreams' section, along with 'the perfect welfare state' and 'the tolerant Moslem society' and move on with your life.

^
What he said.

^
What he said.

He's probably right, but for the wrong reasons.

Bush's atrocities are likely to be overlooked by the greater community, because a lot of people were complicit - if for no other reason that letting it happen. It's the same reason that Israel are hardly likely to be held too accountable for their actions, any time soon.

That doesn't mean Bush shouldn't have to answer - when your regime invents cause for war, someone should be held accountable.

He's probably right, but for the wrong reasons. Bush's atrocities are likely to be overlooked by the greater community, because a lot of people were complicit - if for no other reason that letting it happen. It's the same reason that Israel are hardly likely to be held too accountable for their actions, any time soon.

I think I prefer my line of reasoning. It's more cynical, which in politics(and in life)generally means it tends to be truer.

That doesn't mean Bush shouldn't have to answer - when your regime invents cause for war, someone should be held accountable.

"Should happen's" have never been worth a damn. Like my father used to tell me, 'wish in one hand, and shit in the other, and see which fills up first."

But I think the rest of the world should ask the same thing the US asks. Bush should be tried on an international forum, something like La Haya. Being tried in an American court isn't fair. At least not to those who suffer under him, those who were water-boarded.
The ICC is designed to be a secondary option anyway, to be there if the country with the responsibility to try an individual before their courts lack the ability or will to do so.

And why is it automatically unfair to be tried in an American court? Are you saying that US courts lack the ability to be impartial and fair?

The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what should happen(and that is open to apparently endless debate). Here's what going to happen: Nothing. Because no-one in the world(except the US itself, we've done it twice) has the stones to try and put a US President on trial for...well, anything, really. And even if they did, no-one in the world has the muscle to make it stick.
OK, so you rant on and on about how it won't happen outside the US, but you have yet to say anything about why it could never happen inside the US, in an American court.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/ProsBush.gif

And it doesn't have to happen today. Nor tomorrow. Nor in a week, or a month. Perhaps in a year from now, or two...

OK, so you rant on and on about how it won't happen outside the US, but you have yet to say anything about why it could never happen inside the US, in an American court.

I don't think 'ranting on and on' is all that accurate a statement, and I actually did address the possibility of it occurring within the U.S. at the beginning of the thread: Don't hold your breath. Even assuming it was feasible and/or likely(which is a monster assumption, by the way)B. Hussein Obama is at least savvy enough not to hand the opposition a giant stick to beat him with.

As for waiting for 'a year or two'...the only thing with a shorter shelf-life than a political sin is political gratitude. Within a year or two, people are going to have moved on to other things, and the last thing B. Hussein is going to want to do is dig up the past.

If I were Dubya I would not be travelling abroad anytime soon in case someone else started doing some special rendition.

I don't think 'ranting on and on' is all that accurate a statement, and I actually did address the possibility of it occurring within the U.S. at the beginning of the thread:
Actually, you didn't. See below.

As for waiting for 'a year or two'...the only thing with a shorter shelf-life than a political sin is political gratitude. Within a year or two, people are going to have moved on to other things, and the last thing B. Hussein is going to want to do is dig up the past.
Who?

Do you mean Obama? Unlike "Dubya", I don't think "Hussein" is his nickname. So what are you trying to do here?

Regardless, I thought President Obama had just been elected to the position of, you know, President, and not merely a prosecutor. Or are you saying that the Obama white house will intervene and stop any criminal case from going forward, overriding the decisions of any state attorneys general or any district attorney that may choose to press charges?

If I were Dubya I would not be travelling abroad anytime soon in case someone else started doing some special rendition.

He should indeed choose his travel destinations... wisely.

Though it might be that he'll never set foot outside of Texas again.

Or are you saying that the Obama white house will intervene and stop any criminal case from going forward, overriding the decisions of any state attorneys general or any district attorney that may choose to press charges?

No, I'm saying it'll never even get to the point where he may have to step in. Nobody from his administration is going to press it, because it gives the opposition too big a stick to beat them with and they don't want that. It is in the Democrat's best interest for GWB to just quietly go away.

The idea that a state attorney general and/or a DA might try it is just ludicrous. They are just as much political creatures, if on a smaller scale, and I really don't think some DA is going to prosecute an ex-President, of all people, not when he's got more immediate and pressing concerns that involve cases he has a chance in hell of winning that won't immediately drop a mountain of hot shit in his lap.

No, I'm saying it'll never even get to the point where he may have to step in. Nobody from his administration is going to press it, because it gives the opposition too big a stick to beat them with and they don't want that. It is in the Democrat's best interest for GWB to just quietly go away.

The idea that a state attorney general and/or a DA might try it is just ludicrous. They are just as much political creatures, if on a smaller scale, and I really don't think some DA is going to prosecute an ex-President, of all people, not when he's got more immediate and pressing concerns that involve cases he has a chance in hell of winning that won't immediately drop a mountain of hot shit in his lap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Garrison

And couldn't such a move possibly make a state attorney general a DA from for example a solidly blue state much more popular?

And who says the case is unwinnable? There's plenty of evidence out there, including statements from former president Bush and his former cabinet members. It's all out there, and there's plenty of capable people willing to help.

And it doesn't have to happen today. Nor tomorrow. Nor in a week, or a month. Perhaps in a year from now, or two...
The Israelis spent over 50 years hunting down Nazis since the war. There is no statute of limitations on some crimes. We've got the rest of their lives to build cases against Bush & Co.

EDIT: And before someone yells godwin, I am NOT comparing Bush & Co. to the Nazis. I am only pointing out that patience pays off when it comes to building war related cases.

The Israelis spent over 50 years hunting down Nazis since the war. There is no statute of limitations on some crimes. We've got the rest of their lives to build cases against Bush & Co.

EDIT: And before someone yells godwin, I am NOT comparing Bush & Co. to the Nazis. I am only pointing out that patience pays off when it comes to building war related cases.

Indeed. In some jurisdictions there's no statute of limitations on Crimes Against Humanity, for example.

But I would prefer a case against Bush and friends to be launched sooner rather than later, considering that the evidence is fresh and available now. And it would be unforunate if witnesses dwon the road would take to suffering from individual cases of Gonzalesitus.

Indeed. In some jurisdictions there's no statute of limitations on Crimes Against Humanity, for example.

But I would prefer a case against Bush and friends to be launched sooner rather than later, considering that the evidence is fresh and available now. And it would be unforunate if witnesses dwon the road would take to suffering from individual cases of Gonzalesitus.
Oh, same here, absolutely. I'm just saying that, if it doesn't happen right away, that doesn't necessarily mean it never will or never can.

Oh, same here, absolutely. I'm just saying that, if it doesn't happen right away, that doesn't necessarily mean it never will or never can.

Amd I'm in full agreement with you :wink:

Although there's no real comparison between their actions, I'd like to point towards Pinochet. It took a long time, but he started feeling the pressure of justice before he died.

What purpose would his trial serve?

the message that is being sent to future wanabe tyrants by not holding it.


does the national security of one nation, ever justify the cold blooded premeditated murder, en mass, of the law abiding citizens, of another?

it is my deeply felt conviction that it does not.

yet this is the practice, this great american nation, has engaged in for these past seven years.

the desire to put behind us and forget the embarrassment of this policy is understandable, even laudable: however, in doing so, must the victims of this horrendous outrage, both foreign and domestic, be forgotten, their cries of horror, and their pleas for justice ignored?

the perpetrators of this immoral and inexcusable act, are no better then common criminals, and deserve no greater leniancy then the same. we might not know all of their names, nor which among them was most in command and which most subservient to the others, but we know some of them.

they were the top officials, elected officials, and the closest and highest advisers of these elected officials, of the outgoing administration, sworn to defend against such acts, not to perpetrate them.

several of their names have become household words, among them george w bush, titularly commander in chief, president of the most militarily powerful nation on planet earth, richard chenney, his vice president, karl rove, his chief political strategist and self proclaimed moral adviser, and donald rumsfield, among other things, secretary of defense, and architect, twenty years earlier, of the dreaded fanatical militant tallibon. nor to these alone belongs all culpability, more then one attorneys general, for example, also appear to share in it, yet it IS they, those above individually named, who appear to have been its chief instigators and authority.

it is my personal recommendation that they be remandered to an international court of criminal justice. that they be tried under the terms of the charter of the united nations and its declaration on human rights, the geneva convention, and any and every applicable, law and international aggreement, in addition to whatever domestic laws they may have failed to alter sufficiently to remove their guilt under.

The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what should happen(and that is open to apparently endless debate). Here's what going to happen: Nothing.

You know, I can make Nostradamus predictions too. That's a matter of endless debate too - I know you believe in yourself, and that's positive, but the fact that you made a Nostradamus prediction doesn't make the debate end.

Because no-one in the world(except the US itself, we've done it twice) has the stones to try and put a US President on trial for...well, anything, really. And even if they did, no-one in the world has the muscle to make it stick.

The fact that the US has done it twice invalidates your definitive statement that nothing will be done.

I think what you actually meant to say was you hope nothing will be done, because your contention that "no-one in the world" can apparently try the muscled he-men that are former US presidents is utterly nonsensical. You disproved it yourself in the same bloody paragraph.

So, as much as the idea of Pres. Bush standing in the dock of whatever kangaroo court can be dreamed up warms the heart of your average European leftist, it's just not going to happen.

Now you're just whining about Europe, leftism, and the imagined injustice heaped upon poor Bush. Wah.

You'll have to file it in the 'Fond Pipe Dreams' section, along with 'the perfect welfare state' and 'the tolerant Moslem society' and move on with your life.

Oh, yeah it wouldn't be an irrational stop-being-mean-to-Bush rant without some irrelevant bigotry against Muslims too.

^
What he said.

A vote by New Mitanni doesn't help your position either.

First off, the president must have the approval of Congress before he can initiate any war action. He must apply to Congress and make his case for them to authorize him to use military force.
After, what, 30 days? And the ability to recall the troops has always been Congress', so get mad at them, not me.

Its not the best argument, but: is lying against the law? He wasn't under oath when he lied to all of us.

After, what, 30 days? And the ability to recall the troops has always been Congress', so get mad at them, not me.

Its not the best argument, but: is lying against the law? He wasn't under oath when he lied to all of us.
Yes, lying to Congress is against the law. I said that. More than once. Are you going to be one of those people I have to say everything to 15 times, or do you think you can take note of what's in the posts and get past the mistaken idea that, when I talk to you, I'm talking about you, or that when I speak bluntly it means I'm "mad" at you? Oy vey. This is not personal and it's not about the posters, okay?

Also, aside from the fact that I'm not talking about you, so how could my post be mad at you? -- there's also the assumption that I'm not mad at Congress. Whatever gave you that idea? Just because I don't include the full text of the "Whole Earth Catalogue of Everybody in the US Government Who Has Pissed Me Off in the Past Eight Years" every single time I want to talk about Bush, don't assume that means I'm only blaming one person.

But regardless of what Congress did or didn't do, none of that absolves Bush of what he most certainly did.

Bush invaded Iraq legally with an organized armed forces. There is no official definition of terrorism, but that certainly doesn't fall into anyone's.
On which legal basis did Bush invade Iraq, huh?
Let Bush be tried in the US by an International Military Tribunal, somewhat like the Nuremberg Trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials). :)
*cough*
Why not use the standards set by the United States of America for exactly such a situation, why won't you?

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace? Check.
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace? Check.
3. War crimes? Check.
4. Crimes against humanity? Check.

As President of the United States and Commander in Chief, ex-President Bush and his administration are directly responsible for things actively done under their watch, ordered by them, supported by them, or not stopped by them.

As I remember, those indicted with those 4 points all went to the gallows. http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/hanged.gif

So, putting them on trial which may or may not end in a jail sentence - not so bad after all, eh?
There are many (not just in NSG) who believe the invasion was NOT legal, either by international or US law. Just because you dress your army up in uniforms, that doesn't mean you get to do whatever you like, however you like, and call it legal.
"My lord, is that... legal?"
"I will make it legal."

That line of argument would also make Germany's attack on Poland perfectly legal, which it wasn't.
I disagree. It is fully within the rights of the President to order troops into an attack.
If that were as easy as you make it sound, he's also directly responsible for it.

After, what, 30 days? And the ability to recall the troops has always been Congress', so get mad at them, not me.

The War Powers Act, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court, will be thrown out as unconstitutional. Even the most rabid peacenik Democrats know it. That's why they've never forced the issue.

Its not the best argument, but: is lying against the law? He wasn't under oath when he lied to all of us.

He did not "lie." The only liars are the ones who keep saying Bush lied.

The ICC is designed to be a secondary option anyway, to be there if the country with the responsibility to try an individual before their courts lack the ability or will to do so.

And why is it automatically unfair to be tried in an American court? Are you saying that US courts lack the ability to be impartial and fair?

Why? Because there will be no impartiality. An American court trying a former, American president. It doesn't work, not because the law in the US is bad, but because I am sure there will be no fair trial.

Why? Because there will be no impartiality. An American court trying a former, American president. It doesn't work, not because the law in the US is bad, but because I am sure there will be no fair trial.

Do you fear that the court will be in favour of him, or that it will be biased against him?

"Should happen's" have never been worth a damn.

I'm wondering what you think the thread topic is...

Do you fear that the court will be in favour of him, or that it will be biased against him?

The latter.

The War Powers Act, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court, will be thrown out as unconstitutional.
Why do you think this would happen?

He did not "lie." The only liars are the ones who keep saying Bush lied.

Since Bush himself has admitted what he said wasn't true... you're saying that Bush isn't a liar, but that he lied about lying? It's either that, or he was telling the truth about lying, in which case... nope, still lied.

Do you fear that the court will be in favour of him, or that it will be biased against him?

either one would be bad.

either one would be bad.

Exactly. I fear a US court of law would be incapable of impartiality regarding the trial of a former US president.

Exactly. I fear a US court of law would be incapable of impartiality regarding the trial of a former US president.

I still don't see why it's impossible. Especially not finding a judge that's not biased in his favour.

I mean, you have to have some faith in the American justice system. So tell me, why would a court be incapable of impartiality in this particular case? And why would an international court fare so much better?

Since Bush himself has admitted what he said wasn't true... you're saying that Bush isn't a liar, but that he lied about lying? It's either that, or he was telling the truth about lying, in which case... nope, still lied.

This sentence is a lie.

I still don't see why it's impossible. Especially not finding a judge that's not biased in his favour.

There may be a judge out there, an American one, capable of being impartial. I grant you that. But, what about the jury? Could they be impartial? What about the press? What about the opinion of the American nation if something like that were to happen?

I mean, you have to have some faith in the American justice system. So tell me, why would a court be incapable of impartiality in this particular case? And why would an international court fare so much better?

An American court would be incapable of impartiality because we're talking, again, about a man who was a US president. Can the American people unite, enough, to permit such a trial on their soil?

An international court would fare better because they wouldn't be trying a person and be compromised by feelings of patriotism or nationality. They would see Bush as a criminal and not as a former US president.

They would see Bush as a criminal and not as a former US president.
I think that's the problem with an intl court ;)

I think that's the problem with an intl court ;)

Care to explain that assumption?:wink:

They would see Bush as a criminal...Do international courts really operate on that basis? o_0;

Care to explain that assumption?:wink:

Its kind of like how I explained Obama's election. America might be divided over the issue, but the rest of the world knows exactly how it feels.

You said the court would view him as a criminal. I think it was a slip of your tongue, and I was just making fun of you for it. (A criminal being someone who has committed a crime, versus someone simply accused of a crime.)

...Do international courts really on that basis? o_0;

I truly think so. I could be mistaken.

I truly think so. I could be mistaken.Guilty until proven innocent?

I wouldn't let that court try anyone.

Its kind of like how I explained Obama's election. America might be divided over the issue, but the rest of the world knows exactly how it feels.

You said the court would view him as a criminal. I think it was a slip of your tongue, and I was just making fun of you for it. (A criminal being someone who has committed a crime, versus someone simply accused of a crime.)

Tell me one thing. What do you think Bush is after he accepted he was ok with the use of torture for prisoners of war? That, his acceptance of being ok with torture mechanisms, is what makes him a criminal. Same as Saddam Hussein, same as Osama bin Laden.

However, be that as it may, is it not the place of a court of law to prejudge anyone. A court could hear a case involving a rape/murder of an 8 year old and the accused would still just be the accused and the presumption would be of innocence. They could have all the evidence in the world and if he wanted a trial he would get one, and it would be fair and just.

There may be a judge out there, an American one, capable of being impartial. I grant you that. But, what about the jury? Could they be impartial? What about the press? What about the opinion of the American nation if something like that were to happen?
What about the jury? What about the jury in all other cases? The OJ Simpson trials, for example - were they just for show? If you can trust the jury in cases ranging from celebrities to serial killers, you should be able to trust them in a trial of Bush as well. But you would rather do away with the jury system and try him before a panel of judges... Can't say I blame you, I'm an opponent of the jury system as well.

And what about the press? They have no real influence on the fairness of a trial. And they would be split down the middle.

I think the American nation would be fine, as long as the trial doesn't start tomorrow. Two or three years down the road would be perfect timing.

An American court would be incapable of impartiality because we're talking, again, about a man who was a US president. Can the American people unite, enough, to permit such a trial on their soil?
I still don't see why not. And I believe the public would be much more accepting of a national trial than an international one. An international one would be seen as meddling in the internal affairs by outsiders, and the judgement would not be as respected in the US as a decision handed down by an American court.

And you keep saying that the court would be incapable of impartiality, but you still don't really say why they would be incapable of impartiality. Yes, he's a former president - but would that really cloud the judgements of everyone involved, and, as you indicated above, to his detriment?

An international court would fare better because they wouldn't be trying a person and be compromised by feelings of patriotism or nationality. They would see Bush as a criminal and not as a former US president.
So you're saying that the court would be biased against Bush, and thus it would be better to try him there?

That's an odd argument to make.

I would say that no matter what court tried him, they'd better see him as a person.

And btw: Don't you think judges in international courts could be just as predisposed - if not more - than judges in the US? Maybe they'd be out trying to make some political points, and not out to meter out justice?

...Do international courts really operate on that basis? o_0;
No.

I truly think so. I could be mistaken.
You are, in this case.

The ICC, as you've been refering to, holds itself to the fair trial standard, and that includes the presumtion of innocence.

And it doesn't have to happen today. Nor tomorrow. Nor in a week, or a month. Perhaps in a year from now, or two...
Uhu... LBJ's government killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. Did he get put on trial? No. Ought he to have? Yes.

Since Bushs' crime was an international one, then it only makes sense that he should be tried by an international Tribunal as I previously suggested. Where the trial is held is irrelevant; however they did try German war criminals in Germany.

As far Jim Garrison goes, there is a world of difference between trying a local businessman and an insurance agent, and trying a President, even an ex-President. Also, from your source:
"Opinions differ as to whether he uncovered a conspiracy behind the John F. Kennedy assassination but was blocked from successful prosecution by a federal government cover up, whether he bungled his chance to uncover a conspiracy, or whether the entire case was an unproductive waste of resources."

I know y'all are feeling your oats lately, and along comes with that comes a natural inclination to see how far you can push it, but I'm telling you, it's not gonna happen. I don't expect you to believe me, but in a year or two, when GWB remains completely untroubled by the International Court of Whatever-The-Hell, you might think back to this.

A vote by New Mitanni doesn't help your position either.

I don't know, I've read some of his(her? their?)stuff, and I kind of like it. But my position doesn't need any help, anyways.

As far Jim Garrison goes, there is a world of difference between trying a local businessman and an insurance agent, and trying a President, even an ex-President. Also, from your source:
"Opinions differ as to whether he uncovered a conspiracy behind the John F. Kennedy assassination but was blocked from successful prosecution by a federal government cover up, whether he bungled his chance to uncover a conspiracy, or whether the entire case was an unproductive waste of resources."

I know y'all are feeling your oats lately, and along comes with that comes a natural inclination to see how far you can push it, but I'm telling you, it's not gonna happen. I don't expect you to believe me, but in a year or two, when GWB remains completely untroubled by the International Court of Whatever-The-Hell, you might think back to this.



I don't know, I've read some of his(her? their?)stuff, and I kind of like it. But my position doesn't need any help, anyways.

Are we going to have to revisit that 'would/will, should/shall' lesson, after all?

The general consensus is that nothing WILL happen - the Obama Whitehouse has expressed a preference to avoid it, apart from ANY other factor.

So the question isn't 'will Bush be tried for warcrimes'... but 'SHOULD he'?

It's nothing to do with your dismissive and patronising 'feeling your oats' crap - unless you honestly believe that people have only started making the argument SINCE Obama whipped McCain's ass in November.

Are we going to have to revisit that 'would/will, should/shall' lesson, after all?

The general consensus is that nothing WILL happen - the Obama Whitehouse has expressed a preference to avoid it, apart from ANY other factor.

So the question isn't 'will Bush be tried for warcrimes'... but 'SHOULD he'?

It's nothing to do with your dismissive and patronising 'feeling your oats' crap - unless you honestly believe that people have only started making the argument SINCE Obama whipped McCain's ass in November.
Well, clearly, since nobody is saying that Bush WILL face trial for war crimes, and since our arguments for why he SHOULD regardless of that are sound and based on facts and reasoning, the only way he can cop that condescending attitude is by confusing would/will and should/shall. In other words, by misrepresenting our arguments because he has no comeback for what we're really saying.

The same goes for that oats-feeling BS. Since he and the other Busheviks failed to shoot down these exact same arguments before the election -- and ever since the Iraq war started -- maybe he thinks he can magically win if he pretends it's a new topic. Somehow.

But the fact remains that nothing he has said has in anyway undermined the general argument of the "yes he should" group of posters: Yes, Bush should be tried for war crimes, on the bases and for the reasons explained herein. Yes, Bush could be tried for war crimes on the basis of either US or international law which is recognized by the US. But no, Bush likely will not be tried for anything in any court due to lack of will to do so among those who otherwise could.

However, be that as it may, is it not the place of a court of law to prejudge anyone. A court could hear a case involving a rape/murder of an 8 year old and the accused would still just be the accused and the presumption would be of innocence. They could have all the evidence in the world and if he wanted a trial he would get one, and it would be fair and just.

How sure are you that a trial for George W. Bush, in an American court, would be fair and just? Presumption of innocence or not?

How sure are you that a trial for George W. Bush, in an American court, would be fair and just? Presumption of innocence or not?

If it was a trial by jury, maybe. If it was before a panel of judges, absolutely.

Our system of courts is like our dollar - it doesn't work without absolute faith in it. If I think that a judge and jury can try a rapist or a murderer without prejudice (or an amount of prejudice that would throw the results) then I sure think they can try Bush. And then even if that doesn't work there's an innumerable amount of appeals processes to ensure that everything is fair and above-board.

If it was a trial by jury, maybe. If it was before a panel of judges, absolutely.

Our system of courts is like our dollar - it doesn't work without absolute faith in it. If I think that a judge and jury can try a rapist or a murderer without prejudice (or an amount of prejudice that would throw the results) then I sure think they can try Bush. And then even if that doesn't work there's an innumerable amount of appeals processes to ensure that everything is fair and above-board.

Fair enough. But I'm still of the idea that an international court of law would fare better. Of course, if one must be fair, and one must at all costs, have a jury or a judge be an American or Americans.

Fair enough. But I'm still of the idea that an international court of law would fare better. Of course, if one must be fair, and one must at all costs, have a jury or a judge be an American or Americans.

You know, I heard of a place where all the judges and juries are American... ;)

You know, I heard of a place where all the judges and juries are American... ;)

I'm sure you did, your own country.:wink:
But that wouldn't serve any purpose now, would it?

I'm sure you did, your own country.:wink:
But that wouldn't serve any purpose now, would it?

I don't really understand why it would be different to try him in Washington, DC or the Hague.

I don't really understand why it would be different to try him in Washington, DC or the Hague.

Take some time to think about it. Why would it be better to try the ex-president of one of the most powerful countries in neutral soil? Would it be better to do it in the US?

Take into consideration that GWB has gone down in history as one of the worst presidents in American history so far. Animosity could be a factor? Assassination intents? Riots for trying an ex president? You name it.

Take some time to think about it. Why would it be better to try the ex-president of one of the most powerful countries in neutral soil? Would it be better to do it in the US?

Take into consideration that GWB has gone down in history as one of the worst presidents in American history so far. Animosity could be a factor? Assassination intents? Riots for trying an ex president? You name it.

I feel like Europe has a stronger animosity towards gdub than us colonials do.

I feel like Europe has a stronger animosity towards gdub than us colonials do.

Not all of Europe, to be honest. And I feel like some people would take offense about you referring to your countrymen as ''us colonials''.

If it was a trial by jury, maybe. If it was before a panel of judges, absolutely.


Why would you say that? I was listening to 'conservative pundits' just a few days ago, whining about how politicised and partisan our judges are...

NO

He is gone,get a bloody life. he is gone,find a new cause for petes sake.

NO

He is gone,get a bloody life. he is gone,find a new cause for petes sake.

I don't recall there being a rule anywhere that says war criminals can only be considered for their crimes while they are in office?

It won't happen. I don't even give it a 1/10 chance of happening. Obama won't do it, Obama won't let Congress do it.

That being said, I would like it to happen - not because Bush needs to be punished - but so we write into history how the "war on terror" ended, so everyone knows it was an imperialist sham. As far as I'm concerned, as long as a judgment is rendered, Bush can retire without any sentence to serve.

And the more important reason is so we can see the extent of how far the CIA, NSA, and military has deceived us. If Bush is not guilty then I'm sure someone is.

And the more important reason is so we can see the extent of how far the CIA, NSA, and military has deceived us. If Bush is not guilty then I'm sure someone is.
a trial would not be the place to discover this.

Why would you say that? I was listening to 'conservative pundits' just a few days ago, whining about how politicised and partisan our judges are...

I know that's been their party line for a very long time, but it seems whenever a judge takes a position that runs contrary to whatever they are trying to accomplish, he's being a partisan. Suffice it to say I have a lot more faith in the judges of this country to decide matters of legality than I do the public.

I don't recall there being a rule anywhere that says war criminals can only be considered for their crimes while they are in office?

Exactly. Take, lets take, for example, Augusto Pinochet, ex President of Chile (1973-1990). He was accused of committing crimes againts humanity and war prisoners long after he left office. It's a pity he died awaiting trial, but he was accused after leaving office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet%27s_arrest_and_trial

Exactly. Take, lets take, for example, Augusto Pinochet, ex President of Chile (1973-1990). He was accused of committing crimes againts humanity and war prisoners long after he left office. It's a pity he died awaiting trial, but he was accused after leaving office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet%27s_arrest_and_trial

This^^

I'm not sure why there is a subsection of the population that thinks all the evil a man (but, I'm willing to bet, only a man that meets certain criteria) should be excused for all his sins once he quits the job he used to commit his abuses.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as a judgment is rendered, Bush can retire without any sentence to serve.
What the hell good is that? He should do the time if found guilty.

This^^

I'm not sure why there is a subsection of the population that thinks all the evil a man (but, I'm willing to bet, only a man that meets certain criteria) should be excused for all his sins once he quits the job he used to commit his abuses.

Exactly. In or out of office, if a man commits crimes against humanity, he's guilty regardless.

Yes Neocons. We are out to get poor Bush. He never did anything wrong. Never violated domestic or international law (which per the Constitution, any international treaty we sign IS law). Ever.


Poor guy. Being persecuted. Hes just like Ghandi.

Poor guy. Being persecuted. Hes just like Ghandi.

Well, Ghandi thanked the South African government for not making him sit next to the kaffirs, and with Bush there's Hurricane Katrina.

Maybe they have a point. :D

Well, Ghandi thanked the South African government for not making him sit next to the kaffirs, and with Bush there's Hurricane Katrina.

Maybe they have a point. :D

Seriously, the level of stupid in this thread...


Hes not going to be tried. But you can tell that some Neocons are terrified that he will be. What, with all the vitrol their spewing and how defensive theyre getting.

You know youre ideology is criminal when you act like a cornered animal once you no longer have the upper hand. The fear is delicious.

Mother Jones has two related articles that are very relevant to this topic -- not so much as to Bush himself, but to his Administration. I think this article is very interesting and instructive.

The People vs. Dick Cheney (http://www.motherjones.com//news/feature/2009/01/the-people-vs-dick-cheney.html)

Editor's Note: George W. Bush's decision not to issue a pardon for any former White House officials has left open the question of whether he or his subordinates might be prosecuted for crimes committed during the past eight years. Saying that "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards," President Barack Obama has signaled that he is not likely to delve too deeply into his predecessor's actions. Yet, as legal scholar Karen Greenberg argues below, there are still ways besides trials and investigations to hold the Bush White House accountable for its abuses of power.

And as Jonathan Schwarz notes in this companion piece (see my next post), even if the Obama administration and Congress do not pursue justice for former Bush officials, international lawyers and courts just might.

Just weeks before the 2004 presidential election, Donald Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense, appeared at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. After the secretary finished, with customary panache, assessing the state of the war on terrorism ("Have there been setbacks in Afghanistan and Iraq? You bet"), a young man in a business suit asked politely, "Mr. Secretary, you have a very impressive career both within...and outside the government sector. As such a credible leader, could you please explain to us what your definition of the word 'accountability' is?"

Rumsfeld seemed nonplussed. "Capability?" he asked. "Accountability," the young man repeated politely, yet firmly. "Oh no, I don't know that I can," the secretary said. He cast out a few platitudes—"checks and balances," "gray areas," "individuals who have responsibilities"—only to find his stride by turning to Pentagon personnel metrics. He concluded that "You need to put in place a series of things that hold people reasonably accountable for their actions, and people, I think, expect that."

Today, with Rumsfeld and his former boss on their way to the judgment of history, the question of accountability looms large. From liberals fantasizing about Dick Cheney in handcuffs, to cia officials taking out insurance against prosecution, many are wondering: Will there be redress for the crimes of the Bush administration—and if so, what form should it take?

The list of potential legal breaches is, of course, enormous; by one count, the administration has broken 269 laws, both domestic and international. It begins with illegal wiretapping and surveillance (which in the view of many experts violated the Fourth Amendment, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for starters), the politicization of the Justice Department and the firing of nine US attorneys, and numerous instances of obstruction of justice—from the destruction of cia interrogation tapes to the willful misleading of Congress and the public. Perhaps the paramount charge that legal experts have zeroed in on is the state-approved torture that violated not just the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture but also the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 1996 War Crimes Act, which prohibits humiliating and degrading treatment and other "outrages upon personal dignity."

With these abuses in mind, lawyers, policymakers, and others have identified three models from which to fashion a response to the Bush era. In decreasing order of opprobrium, the choices are impeachment, prosecution, and investigative commission.

Impeachment, according tothe consensus emerging in Washington and among a wide spectrum of lawyers and human rights advocates, seems both unlikely and undesirable. Though it has reared its head periodically over the past eight years—most notably with Rep. Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney—Democratic leaders have declared the option "off the table." And at this point, it's a bit moot.

The idea of prosecution has fared only slightly better. In Italy, 26 Americans—including cia agents, a military attaché, and several diplomats—face charges in conjunction with the rendition of radical cleric Abu Omar to Egypt. Human rights organizations, notably the Center for Constitutional Rights, have teamed up with partners in Germany and France to pursue charges against Rumsfeld for violating the Convention Against Torture, though so far to little effect. The possibility of other cases has been raised, most recently in British barrister Philippe Sands' warning that Congress should investigate the torture question, for "if the United States doesn't address this, other countries will." (See "Who Will Throw the Book at the Bushies.)

More significantly, there have also been rumblings about prosecution here at home. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has already appointed a special prosecutor to look into the Justice Department firings; potential targets include four top doj officials as well as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. In June, 56 congressional Democrats signed a letter to Mukasey seeking an investigation into detainee abuses with an eye toward violations of "federal criminal laws." Then, after a September conference on the crimes of the Bush administration sponsored by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, attendees launched a committee to seek the prosecution of the president, chaired by the school's dean, Lawrence Velvel. Also in September, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) introduced the Executive Branch Accountability Act of 2008, which calls for the new president to "investigate Bush/Cheney administration officials' alleged crimes and hold them accountable for any illegal acts." Baldwin's plan would require Congress to appoint a special prosecutor to consider the possibility of criminal charges—a model whose historical precedents Americans are only too familiar with.

Still, when I asked a range of legal and political experts about the prosecution option, few seemed to consider it worthwhile—at least at this point. "We need some sort of accountability," Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman told me, "but it won't necessarily be by prosecutions." The reasons are practical as well as philosophical. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz explained that "the real question is whether investigating one's political opponents poses too great a risk of criminalizing policy differences—especially when these differences are highly emotional and contentious." Others, including nyu law professor and former aclu president Norman Dorsen, who chaired two investigative commissions for the Ford and Clinton administrations, warn of the dangers of appearing vengeful, or even creating sympathy for those under scrutiny. After all, some argue, John Yoo, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and the lot are already persona non grata; though they'll likely do fine in the private sector or academia, their reputations are indelibly tarnished and their political careers effectively over.

Perhaps the biggest question, though, is one of political will given that Americans, it seems, really aren't that upset about what has happened. A recent University of Maryland poll found that tolerance for torture of suspected terrorists has actually risen in recent years, from 36 percent in 2006 to 44 percent last June.

Barack Obama's campaign message reinforced this reluctance to prosecute. In essence, he has promised to create a national unity government, a notion that doesn't square with criminally charging one's predecessors. As Obama put it last April, "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve." Obama's advisers, too, have let it be known that prosecutions are not on the agenda except for "egregious crimes," a term that seems purposely vague. Only Joe Biden, perhaps straying from his talking points (again), has seemed open to the possibility. "If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued," he said last fall, "not out of vengeance, not out of retribution—out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president, no one is above the law."

But it is not just political caution that stands in the way of prosecution. It is also the fact that torture and other alleged crimes were sanctioned by legal advice within the administration and, in some cases, by Congress. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has the authority to interpret the law for the executive; these interpretations—including the "torture memos"—are considered binding until they are reversed or disavowed.

In addition, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 limited the abuses that can be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act to only the most extreme violations of the Geneva Conventions (thus codifying the distinction between "torture" and "degrading treatment"); the changes were made retroactive to 1997, creating what Garth Meintjes, a noted authority on transitional justice and amnesties, has called "quasi amnesties." These changes are one reason why the Senate armed services and judiciary committees, in their hearings on torture last summer, seemed to focus on proving perjury as much as substantive violations of law.

With impeachment out of the picture and prosecution receding as a possibility, attention has turned to an investigative commission along the lines of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that followed the end of apartheid in South Africa, the 1967 Kerner Commission on race, or the 9/11 Commission; the best model may be the Church Committee, Congress' response to the 1970s revelations on Watergate, cia destabilization programs abroad, and surveillance of Americans. (The Church hearings led to creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.) Perhaps recognizing that his impeachment bill is past its sell-by date, Kucinich has cottoned to the commission idea, announcing in September that he was looking to introduce legislation to launch just such a body.

As Walter Lippmann once wrote, congressional commissions can turn into a free-for-all as politicians, "starved of their legitimate food for thought, go on a wild and feverish manhunt, and do not stop at cannibalism." Accordingly, some favor the idea of an independent commission, run by someone of the stature of Plamegate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald or former New York US Attorney Mary Jo White, in the hope that this format would be less politically charged. The goal would be to prove Lippmann wrong and establish the facts in a reliable, nonpartisan fashion—to create an authoritative narrative that the nation could share.

But what kind of commission makes all the difference. Truth and reconciliation commissions, which the United States has never had at the federal level, are for healing. Watergate-style commissions bear the prospect of condemnation, exposure, and punishment. Then there is the question of just what is to be found: Much of what happened in the run-up to the war, the torture scandal, or the National Security Agency wiretaps has already been documented in news articles, books, and congressional probes; what is missing, though, is the full story about who knew what and when. Perhaps a commission could get members of the Bush administration to reveal these details. Perhaps there are other skeletons to be unearthed. The best hope, Meintjes ruefully acknowledges, is for a "negotiated truth" along the lines of the 9/11 Commission. As attorney Scott Horton has pointed out in Harper's, "Investigative commissions can provide truth...but they cannot provide justice."

Yet it's also true that once a commission begins, it is hard to control just where it will go. Although many who embrace the idea of a commission have disavowed prosecution, once the facts are out, criminal charges may yet follow. If prosecution looms as a possibility, testimony may be difficult to obtain. But if immunity is offered—a common element in truth and reconciliation commissions—prosecutions may prove problematic.

To be sure, any commission would be time-consuming and could distract the new administration from the urgent work of addressing the war in Iraq and the financial crisis. And there's the problem of potential complicity among those charged with the investigation. Members of Congress who voted for war, for example, would rather not revisit that moment; ditto those who were briefed on the wiretaps and the cia interrogation techniques.

Yet the downside of not addressing crimes of power is immense. It creates a space for lingering suspicion that the new president might want to keep some of the excessive authority Bush carved out for himself. What's more, signaling a new way forward in the matter of torture could go a long way toward reestablishing the government's credibility at home and abroad. One possibility, suggests Dorsen, is for Congress or a blue-ribbon citizens' commission to hold investigative hearings; only if crimes are revealed would the attorney general consider (very carefully) what the consequences of prosecution would be.

Whatever form it takes, the accounting will not be easy. As one close observer has put it, "Who would want the job of cleaning the Augean stables anyway?" Congress may not be able to redirect the rivers as Hercules did to wash out the accumulated filth, but it can go a long way in that direction. Accountability is a worthy goal even if incomplete. To borrow a phrase from Chile's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the best we can hope for is "all the truth and as much justice as possible."

Karen Greenberg runs NYU's Center on Law and Security and is the author of The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo's First 100 Days.

According to this article in Mother Jones, if Congress won't, these folks might.

Who Will Throw the Book at the Bushies? (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2009/01/if-congress-doesnt-who-will.html)
By Jonathan Schwarz

While Democratic staffers say that Congress will continue to pick through the Bush administration's record, they doubt that it will take on the big issues. Assuming Congress and the White House punt on Iraq and torture, who else could throw the book at the Bush/Cheney crew? A few possibilities:

A Rogue district attorney In his recent book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi lays out a creative argument that state or local prosecutors could indict Bush for murder if a soldier from their jurisdiction was killed in Iraq. It's a far-fetched premise, but with 2,700 DAs out there, Bugliosi—famous for putting Charles Manson away—says, "I just need one." (Last fall, the Vermont Progressive Party's candidate for attorney general said that if elected, she would appoint Bugliosi to implement his plan.) This unusual strategy is not unprecedented; witness New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison's investigation into John F. Kennedy's assassination (as dramatized in JFK ). Garrison successfully subpoenaed evidence like the Zapruder film, which had not been seen publicly before the trial. Potential upshot: major embarrassment for Bush. Likelihood: low.

Ticked-Off Lawyers Most of what happened under Bush was "legal" in the sense that the Justice Department issued opinions—such as the so-called torture memos—that said as much. The new administration, if only to placate the military and intelligence agencies, will be loath to go after Bush officials who can claim legal cover, no matter how flawed the reasoning behind it. But the lawyers who actually drafted the legal justifications for torture—particularly Dick Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, and Justice Department lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee—may be vulnerable. They could be indicted in federal court if they knowingly issued faulty legal opinions that led to criminal acts. However, that would be an extremely difficult case to make unless one of the defendants turned against the others. More plausible is that, like Bill Clinton and Scooter Libby, they could face disbarment, limiting their employment prospects.

The United Nations A range of observers, from former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to überhawk Richard Perle, has acknowledged that the invasion of Iraq violated the UN Charter. In theory, the Security Council could sanction the United States or even authorize the use of force to expel our troops. But that's a nonstarter, not least because the Security Council signed off on the occupation of Iraq. Likewise, the United States could be tried in the UN's International Court of Justice and forced to pay reparations to Iraq. That's also doubtful, since the Security Council enforces Court rulings; the US could use its veto power as it did in 1986, when the icj found we had violated international law by supporting the Nicaraguan Contras. If the UN wanted to go after American officials for torture, it could set up a special tribunal like those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. But such courts are the creation of—you guessed it—the Security Council.

The International Criminal Court The Third Geneva Conventions, which the United States signed in 1949, as well as the UN Convention Against Torture, which Congress ratified in 1988, forbid torture. The International Criminal Court (not to be confused with the icj) was convened in the Netherlands in 2002 as a permanent venue to try crimes including violations of Geneva. But the United States hasn't ratified the ICC treaty and has pressured 100 countries to agree never to extradite American citizens to the court, so Dick Cheney's unlikely to wind up in the dock at The Hague.

The Garzón Factor Not that George W. Bush & Co. shouldn't be worried about international laws that they once sneered at. There are hints that they already are: A 2002 State Department memo cautioned officials about the "risk of future criminal prosecution," and the Pentagon's 2005 National Defense Strategy warned of enemies who might "employ a strategy of the weak using international fora and judicial processes."

The biggest threat comes from European magistrates like Baltasar Garzón, the Spanish "superjudge" who nearly brought Augusto Pinochet to justice. In 1998, Garzón issued an arrest warrant for the former Chilean dictator for the deaths of Spanish citizens who'd been tortured by his regime. Days later, the unsuspecting 82-year-old was picked up while visiting England.

In many European countries, most notably Spain and Italy, judges can initiate prosecutions and—as in the case of Pinochet—may do so independently of the executive branch. Peter Weiss, vice president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says such a court might be the most plausible venue for a case against Bush. "The prime minister of Spain was completely against going after Pinochet," he points out, "but a judge lower down was able to do it." The approach might prove especially effective in pursuing torture cases. As signatories to the Convention Against Torture, most European nations are obligated, theoretically, to investigate violations by other signatories, such as the United States. Sure enough, human rights advocates have filed complaints in Germany, France, and Sweden against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for authorizing the torture of Iraqi and Saudi citizens in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. The CCR claims a pending case convinced Rumsfeld to alter his travel plans to Germany.

"Believe me, people from the top of the administration will be consulting with lawyers for the rest of their lives," says Christopher Simpson, a professor at American University and an expert on international law. "They will have to coordinate very, very closely with the State Department's specialists whenever they leave America. This is something they cannot take lightly." Larry Wilkerson, who served as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, has warned that former Bush officials like Gonzales, Yoo, and Addington "should never travel outside the US, except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel."

I like to think that at least one of these routes will lead to some justice for the crimes of the Bush Administration.

According to this article in Mother Jones, if Congress won't, these folks might.

Who Will Throw the Book at the Bushies? (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2009/01/if-congress-doesnt-who-will.html)
By Jonathan Schwarz

<snip Muravyets' xmas wish list>
Any one of those would make me do a happy dance, and the thought of all of them out there, lying in wait, haunting those bastards, just warms the cockles of my heart. :D

Keep wishing for your... 'justice'.

I'm surprised that NSG is so Liberal. I mean, this isn't minor, everyone here lives, breathes, and dies Democrat. Or anti-Bush, which I gather is synonymous ATM. I figured this forum for a Conservative hangout.

Keep wishing for your... 'justice'.

I'm surprised that NSG is so Liberal. I mean, this isn't minor, everyone here lives, breathes, and dies Democrat. Or anti-Bush, which I gather is synonymous ATM. I figured this forum for a Conservative hangout.
Are you trying to make me laugh? I appreciate the effort.

Looking at 15 pages of conviction that the Bush Administration is the devil and the Republican Congress is the reason he was able to get his (of course, it's all Bush or his 'cronies') agenda through... yeah. Great joke, ha ha. Every time someone tries to defend Bush, he or she isn't even listened to, people just spout the rhetoric and call them a troll. Debate is all about listening to both sides, and hell, having experience in defending both sides of an argument. Find some reasons why Bush SHOULDN'T be charged with war crimes. By doing so, you can make your case stronger. Without doing so, you only make yourself judge, jury, but not executioner. (Unfortunate, in your eyes). And yes, I've been able to collect data on both sides, and understand both aspects.

PROSECUTION:

1.) Torture
2.) Forced U.S. policy on innocent nations
3.) Innocents dead in thousands/millions
4.) Middle East (particularly the countries we're in) are mainly unanimous in hatred of the U.S. presence.

MITIGATION

1.) War in Iraq based on false intel (I swear to God, if someone says that Bush knew it was false, I'm gonna have to refer you to some of my favorite blown or mistaken ops based on bad intel. History's role on judgment is a funny one.)
2.) Actions legal based on (insert document)
3.) Conditions of war crimes not met (intentional mass-murder of civvies, etc.)

Looking at 15 pages of conviction that the Bush Administration is the devil and the Republican Congress is the reason he was able to get his (of course, it's all Bush or his 'cronies') agenda through... yeah. Great joke, ha ha. Every time someone tries to defend Bush, he or she isn't even listened to, people just spout the rhetoric and call them a troll. Debate is all about listening to both sides, and hell, having experience in defending both sides of an argument. Find some reasons why Bush SHOULDN'T be charged with war crimes. By doing so, you can make your case stronger. Without doing so, you only make yourself judge, jury, but not executioner. (Unfortunate, in your eyes). And yes, I've been able to collect data on both sides, and understand both aspects.

PROSECUTION:

1.) Torture
2.) Forced U.S. policy on innocent nations
3.) Innocents dead in thousands/millions
4.) Middle East (particularly the countries we're in) are mainly unanimous in hatred of the U.S. presence.

MITIGATION

1.) War in Iraq based on false intel (I swear to God, if someone says that Bush knew it was false, I'm gonna have to refer you to some of my favorite blown or mistaken ops based on bad intel. History's role on judgment is a funny one.)
2.) Actions legal based on (insert document)
3.) Conditions of war crimes not met (intentional mass-murder of civvies, etc.)

Torture's a war crime.

Hence me putting it in the prosecution.

Mitigation says that waterboarding (or a specific version thereof) was not torture, at the time of the occurrences.

This is the reason the trial would be pointless, irregardless of outcome or what you think should happen -- neither position wins. It's a bloody stalemate. Bush goes free with a stern warning, but that doesn't matter because he's sinking into obscurity again.

Hence me putting it in the prosecution.

Mitigation says that waterboarding (or a specific version thereof) was not torture, at the time of the occurrences.

This is the reason the trial would be pointless, irregardless of outcome or what you think should happen -- neither position wins. It's a bloody stalemate. Bush goes free with a stern warning, but that doesn't matter because he's sinking into obscurity again.
Except, of course, that it was torture at the time of the occurrence, under US law.

Mitigation says that waterboarding (or a specific version thereof) was not torture, at the time of the occurrences.

No, it was. Everyone knows it. Only Bush and his apologists pretend that it wasnt.

Remember what I said about false intel? The CIA officers were told by J. Department OLC that waterboarding was legal, by their examinations; of course, we NOW know that the information that they gave was under pressure from the political situation. Do we put Jack Johnson, fresh outta law school, into criminal trial for being an accomplice to torture?

EDIT: Is that there is no need for edit. My point remains that mistakes are made, and you aren't gonna tell me that the Judicial Branch was somehow steered by Bush into giving planted information about torture -- yeah, sorry, not gonna buy it.

This is about Bush, not lackies

Remember what I said about false intel? The CIA officers were told by J. Department OLC that waterboarding was legal, by their examinations; of course, we NOW know that the information that they gave was under pressure from the political situation. Do we put Jack Johnson, fresh outta law school, into criminal trial for being an accomplice to torture?

EDIT: Is that there is no need for edit. My point remains that mistakes are made, and you aren't gonna tell me that the Judicial Branch was somehow steered by Bush into giving planted information about torture -- yeah, sorry, not gonna buy it.
Bullshit. Every part of the US government has known that waterboarding was on the list of illegal tortures since WW2. Every American knows that torture is bad. Most Americans either know or are capable of finding out that it is also illegal. And any American, in or out of the government, is capable of figuring out that if a thing is on the illegal torture list, then it's torture and its illegal.

So, what was this "bad intel" that had them pointing to the illegal torture list and saying, "But what about this one? Can we do this one? Can we, huh?"

Is "bad intel" a military euphemism for "stupid"?

@ KoL: HAHAHA

Right. EVERYONE in the government is (was) under the control of Bush. I presume you think that he told them to call him "your majesty?" Sorry, I have no further wish to speak with or at you, since you have such a skewed view of the American government.

@ Mura:

Ah, damn, didn't know that this was the term that the administration was using (bad intelligence). I really didn't, till I Googled it just now, swear to God. I hate being a choir. Anyway, gonna find ya some examples quick, fast, and in a hurry, brb.

HAHAHA

Right. EVERYONE in the government is (was) under the control of Bush. I presume you think that he told them to call him "your majesty?" Sorry, I have no further wish to speak with or at you, since you have such a skewed view of the American government.

Who do you think told the CIA officers waterboarding was legal?

Bush fucking admitted he gave the order. Dont fight a battle when you dont know enough to at least humor me.

Remember what I said about false intel? The CIA officers were told by J. Department OLC that waterboarding was legal, by their examinations; of course, we NOW know that the information that they gave was under pressure from the political situation. Do we put Jack Johnson, fresh outta law school, into criminal trial for being an accomplice to torture?

EDIT: Is that there is no need for edit. My point remains that mistakes are made, and you aren't gonna tell me that the Judicial Branch was somehow steered by Bush into giving planted information about torture -- yeah, sorry, not gonna buy it.

Was that some kind of typo or mental oversight -- or do you actually think the Justice Department is part of the Judicial Branch?

Are you unaware of how the Bush Administration politicized and litmus tested it's Justice Dep't lackeys?

Remember what I said about false intel? The CIA officers were told by J. Department OLC that waterboarding was legal, by their examinations; of course, we NOW know that the information that they gave was under pressure from the political situation. Do we put Jack Johnson, fresh outta law school, into criminal trial for being an accomplice to torture?

EDIT: Is that there is no need for edit. My point remains that mistakes are made, and you aren't gonna tell me that the Judicial Branch was somehow steered by Bush into giving planted information about torture -- yeah, sorry, not gonna buy it.

Yup, we do put him in jail. Shouldn't you be put in jail if intentionally gave me bad information that led to me torturing someone?

And, he didn't need the Justice department to tell him. We have a long history of prosecuting people for waterboarding. Ignorance is not an excuse for speeding, nor should it be an excuse for torturing hundreds of people, killing hundreds of thousands, and ignoring the rights of another thousand or so.

@ KoL: HAHAHA

Right. EVERYONE in the government is (was) under the control of Bush. I presume you think that he told them to call him "your majesty?" Sorry, I have no further wish to speak with or at you, since you have such a skewed view of the American government.

@ Mura:

Ah, damn, didn't know that this was the term that the administration was using (bad intelligence). I really didn't, till I Googled it just now, swear to God. I hate being a choir. Anyway, gonna find ya some examples quick, fast, and in a hurry, brb.
It's called being the boss, GLT. That's why being the boss sucks. No matter whether you ordered the fuck-up or not, it's still your fault, because you should have been on top of things.

And anyway, I utterly dismiss anything that even remotely suggests all this torture shit was going on without Bush knowing about it. He himself, in recent remarks, put paid to that lie by admitting that he approved waterboarding. Also, with such strong evidence -- in the form of documentation and their own public statements over the years -- against such "low level lackies" as Cheney and Rumsfeld, it is just ridiculous to think Bush was not in the loop on this.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763676.html

- The Tet Offensive

- Pearl Harbor

- Singapore, 1942

- Yom Kippur War

- Dieppe

- Falklands War


Whoops, sorry. My fingers slipped. Didn't mean to give you so many examples of fuckups people make from what they're told.

QUICK! Go prosecute whoever it was that was commanding U.S. forces in the Pacific!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763676.html

- The Tet Offensive

- Pearl Harbor

- Singapore, 1942

- Yom Kippur War

- Dieppe

- Falklands War


Whoops, sorry. My fingers slipped.


???

What a totally worthless and irrelevent list.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763676.html

- The Tet Offensive

- Pearl Harbor

- Singapore, 1942

- Yom Kippur War

- Dieppe

- Falklands War


Whoops, sorry. My fingers slipped.
Well, get them back on that keyboard so you can type a point.

Was that some kind of typo or mental oversight -- or do you actually think the Justice Department is part of the Judicial Branch?

Are you unaware of how the Bush Administration politicized and litmus tested it's Justice Dep't lackeys?

Typo.

But, I would love to see you show me information that all the desk clerks and the cubicle-bound worker bees are all selected for Bush's exclusive use as a personal get out of jail free card.

http://www.amazon.com/Military-Intelligence-Blunders-Coverups-Hughes-Wilson/dp/0786713739/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1233119647&sr=11-1

Great read. I recommend it. Got it sitting open in front of me right now.

Ah forgive me, I believed the OP was defining war crimes as wrongful acts committed within the war, not the war as a whole. I can't say I accept the concept of international law and I think that Iraq was justified to remove a dictator, but with your definition of war criminal thats irrelevant.

Confused. Iraq would have been justified to remove a dictator if Iraq had done so. Since this is not the case I don't really understand the point you are making. International law is not the only thing that he violated. When the US signs a treaty that is internationally recognized they are to be held under the accord. Bush/Cheney instituted policies that resulted in torture. When they learned of the torture they could have chosen to stop it. Instead they justified torture by saying that it wasn't torture. I think I'll just say that murder isn't really murder therefor I cannot be held under the law.

Typo.

But, I would love to see you show me information that all the desk clerks and the cubicle-bound worker bees are all selected for Bush's exclusive use as a personal get out of jail free card.

Why don't you first show me information that desk clerks and cubicle-bound worker bees advised Bush that waterboarding was not torture?

FYI, it was political appointees that gave that "advice."

http://www.amazon.com/Military-Intelligence-Blunders-Coverups-Hughes-Wilson/dp/0786713739/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1233119647&sr=11-1

Great read. I recommend it. Got it sitting open in front of me right now.

How, by the way, is "advice" about whether or not torture is legal a failure of military intelligence?

Okay, you win. Another person who disagrees with you I mean troll slain. You beat me with your infallible logic and your perfect understanding of any words that came out of my metaphorical mouth. Congrats.

How, by the way, is "advice" about whether or not torture is legal a failure of military intelligence?

GITMO = full of PoWs

PoW = Prisoner of War

Logically follows, I think.

Wasn't that legal at the time? waterboarding that is, if it's not illegal its not a crime.

No, it was then and is now illegal. Because they said they thought it should be legal does not make it so.

So claiming ignorance should excuse from prosecution? Sorry, I cannot agree with that.
If you are responsible and in charge, you are also responsible to inform yourself of what it is going on and what exactly it is you are giving your ok to.

One of the first things I learned in my criminal law class is that ignorance of the the law is not justification for ignoring it. This applies here.

I'm too tired to read through this whole thread looking for the answer, but I suspect it hasn't been posted. Can one of you lawyer types tell me the answer to this question?

Who has the power to bring Bush to The Hague?

I'm thinking "no one, unless the US chose to extradite him" is the correct answer. I'm thinking that even if Dubya booked a flight to Schipol, hopped onto a train to Den Haag Centraal, and bought tickets for him and Laura to tour Mauritshuis; the Den Haag Politie wouldn't have the authority to drive him across town to the ICJ, much less toss him in the dock for a trial.

Seems to me that all the justification for charges are irrelevant unless someone is prepared and able to press them. I just don't ever see the US cooperating with that. Does it matter? Could they try him in absentia without cooperation from the USA? Do they have the power to enforce any decision concerning a former chief exec from a permanent member of the Security Council, or have we managed to gut any actual power preemptively?

Just curious.

GITMO = full of PoWs

PoW = Prisoner of War

Logically follows, I think.

Not according to the Bush administration. POWs have to be treated a certain way under the Geneva Convention. GREAT BIG violation of international law.

But is it JUST international law? Nope. Because the Constitution says that any treaty we sign becomes US law. So Bush violated laws here and abroad and he violated them in a way that definitely made them a war crime.

That is if they were POWs. Are you actually trying to prove Bush should be prosecuted?

Okay, you win. Another person who disagrees with you I mean troll slain. You beat me with your infallible logic and your perfect understanding of any words that came out of my metaphorical mouth. Congrats.

Does it seem like a rational thing to do to attack a poster who makes reasoned arguments against you and act like HE isn't listening?

You didn't reply to his arguments at all. Fallacies don't work here. You're going to have to actually pull up your pants, set your jaw and put in some work if you want to make an argument that passes muster.

-snip-

...Debate is all about listening to both sides, and hell, having experience in defending both sides of an argument. Find some reasons why Bush SHOULDN'T be charged with war crimes. By doing so, you can make your case stronger. Without doing so, you only make yourself judge, jury, but not executioner...

-snip-

Yes. Yes, I am.

Does it seem like a rational thing to do to attack a poster who makes reasoned arguments against you and act like HE isn't listening?

You didn't reply to his arguments at all. Fallacies don't work here. You're going to have to actually pull up your pants, set your jaw and put in some work if you want to make an argument that passes muster.

An argument isn't reclassified as a... statement? Non-argument? just because it's been refuted. It's just a failed argument. I take issue with the fact that what I say is simply denied out of hand (albeit, with justification), but then you have the nerve to tell me I'm NOT making arguments. So what if they suck? I'm engaging in intellectual discourse, even if it is flawed.

Yes. Yes, I am.

Except he made an argument and listened to your side and replied to it.

YOU just attacked him and ignored his arguments entirely. After showing up and attacking the whole forum, that is.

If you're hear to debate, do it. That does not include writing posts with the sole purpose of pissing off the "enemy" as you seem to regard anyone who disagrees with you.

It will only happen in the LSD trips of deluded leftist idiots.

And when the US suffers its next terrorist attack, due to the incompetence and stupidity of the Dark Lord, nobody will ever ask that question again. Real Americans, however, will be asking "How soon can we violently and painfully exterminate the bastards responsible and all their supporters?"

Ah, I love these tripes you go on. Using words that have no true meaning like "real American" just make you sound foolish. Having spent years in an MOS 02 I feel confident in saying that torture is not a valid way to get useful, actionable intelligence. It's great for tv shows like 24, but falls short in the real world.

An argument isn't reclassified as a... statement? Non-argument? just because it's been refuted. It's just a failed argument. I take issue with the fact that what I say is simply denied out of hand (albeit, with justification), but then you have the nerve to tell me I'm NOT making arguments. So what if they suck? I'm engaging in intellectual discourse, even if it is flawed.

You're welcome to apply context to my usage of the word argument if you'd like to make a reasoned apply. You learned how to do so in grade school. It's not intellectual discourse if every time someone paints you into a courner you drop the argument and start insulting them. It's not even discourse.

You weren't denied out of hand. He answered you. You put up a strawman about desk jockeys and he pointed out that no one is talking about them as they clearly are not who advises the President. That IS an argument. That you ignored it doesn't change that it's not only a direct reply to what you said, but it's factually correct.

After showing up and attacking the whole forum, that is.

That does not include writing posts with the sole purpose of pissing off the "enemy" as you seem to regard anyone who disagrees with you.

Oh, okay. Presume some more. Yep, I came in here expecting to be criminalized for refuting the belief that Bush should be charged with war crimes. As I said either here or elsewhere, with the bend this whole forum has, yeah, it IS like attacking the whole forum when you disagree with anything on the left side of the political spectrum or which doesn't vilify Bush.

You're welcome to apply context to my usage of the word argument if you'd like to make a reasoned apply. You learned how to do so in grade school.

You weren't denied out of hand. He answered you. You put up a strawman about desk jockeys and he pointed out that no one is talking about them as they clearly are not who advises the President. That IS an argument. That you ignored it doesn't change that it's not only a direct reply to what you said, but it's factually correct.

The progression of events I saw was:

Justice Department's OLC said waterboarding's legal, was wrong --> OLC is Bush appointees --> No, not everyone in the Justice Department is an appointee --> We're not talking about everyone in the JD, just Bush's cronies --> etc

Order starts with me, alternates.

Terrorists are extraterritorial entities. They might belong to a nation but as long as they do not act as representatives of that nation I have no qualms about trying them in our courts.

That's exactly what Bush fought to avoid. He didn't want them tried in US courts. He wanted separate military tribunals instead.