Should Bush Be Tried for War Crimes?

[Joanne98]

The chorus demanding George Bush be prosecuted for torture and other constitutional abuses is getting louder

by Dan Kennedy
I had a good laugh when my friend Seth Gitell reported in the New York Sun on a campaign by the dean of the obscure Massachusetts School of Law to put George Bush and other top White House officials on trial for war crimes.

Lawrence Velvel, Gitell notes, wrote last month that his model was the Nuremberg trials held after second world war. Velvel went so far as to say that “we must insist on appropriate punishments, including, if guilt is found, the hangings visited upon top Germans and Japanese.” Oh, my.

Though I found Velvel’s apparently earnest quest as ridiculous as Gitell did, the idea of holding our leaders accountable for the crimes and constitutional violations of the past seven and a half years isn’t ridiculous in the least.

We are less than a decade removed from impeaching a president and nearly relieving him of office because of a lie in a civil deposition about blowjobs. Yet when congressman Dennis Kucinich recently attempted to impeach Bush over torture, extraordinary rendition and other grotesque constitutional abuses, Kucinich’s embarrassed fellow Democrats couldn’t kill the measure quickly enough.

Why? Top Democrats are so complicit in what has happened since 9/11 that my guess is they dare not travel down that road. From voting in favor of the war in Iraq to holding the telecommunications companies guiltless for their role in spying on Americans (Barack Obama infuriated much of his progressive base by voting for immunity), the Democrats have often acted more as enablers than as a true opposition party. From their point of view, no doubt it’s best to move on.

And yet we can’t move on. Everywhere you turn, there are reminders of the demons that have been unleashed in the name of fighting terrorism. We are less democratic and less free than we were before Bush and Dick Cheney entered office following an election that they demonstrably did not win. If we don’t come to terms with what happened, there’s little chance of reversing our slide into authoritarianism.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/10/10273/

[Demeter]

1. 100% YES

And before he does anything else.

[LaStrega]

6. And before he can offer any Pardons!

"... and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

As Thom Hartmann has said, by Impeachment we're not talking removal from office (though that'd be ideal), we're talking beginning the articles of Impeachment to strip him of his authority to offer Pardon(s).

[MasonJar]

2. I do not see the suggestion as laughable. What these yahoos have

done to the US is treason. They have known all along that their actions were illegal and did not care. On just Iraq alone (over one million Iraqis have been killed) the crime is infinite. Are the lives of W and Dick more valuable than those babies crushed when their houses were bombed?

[cstanleytech]

5. Up for debate if it falls under treason or atleast the definition I

read for what that requires, war crimes however..........if the stories of what has happened with the CIA and the secret prisons, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and other treatment of people are true then yeah he should be put on trial, he wont however, the ones who usually get put on trial usually lose a war against another country and are captured either soon after the war or while fleeing and besides the US wields a great deal of power and just about no president would ever condone a warcrimes trial, it would be political suicide if they did.

[Prophet 451]

8. Actually, I think a treason charge would stick

At least, it would if an unbiased judge and jury could be found. Under the US Constitution, treason against the US consists only in "making war against her" (obviously doesn't apply) or "adhering to her enemies, giving them aid and comfort" (my emphasis). Further, an act of treason must be both voluntary and knowing (i.e. you cannot commit treason by accident). I would argue that the Plame affair fits that definition.

Assuming the facts we already know to be correct, Cheney and/or Bush willingly disclosed the name of a covert agent, blowing her cover. Because that agent was involved in long-term covert operations and with the front group Brewster Jennings & Associates. BJA was used primarily for nuclear counter-proliferation which means that blowing their cover almost certainly got people killed and probably led to more loose nukes. I'd say that counts as giving "aid and comfort" to America's enemies.

[cstanleytech]

13. Kinda iffy on the plame issue, it could be argued he as the president

had the legal authorization to release the name of any agent and thats assuming you can get evidence together to show he authorized it.
Now what I wonder is if getting our troops killed by sending them into Iraq if of course it can be proven he knowingly lied about the WMDs which was the main justifcation but that again is going to be something difficult if not impossible to prove without witnesses however I do wonder if he could be charged with 3000+ counts of involuntary manslaughter for it under our laws? That actually might be easier to prove than treason.

[laststeamtrain]

3. Yes. It's absolutely necessary. No question about it. n/t

[trthnd4jstc]

4. War Crimes, Treason, Murder: Yes! n.t.

[Prophet 451]

7. Of course he should!

There is easily enough prima facie evidence to charge him with war crimes (and possibly, crimes against humanity). Specifically, he can be charged with crimes against peace (i.e. starting an unprovoked war, a crime under the UN charter); torture, inhumane treatment and sundry other violations of the Geneva Conventions; his attempt to create a legal black hole for "enemy combatants" (the Conventions make it clear that absolutely everyone in custody is either a civilian, a criminal or a POW and covered by the appropriate provisions, there is no in-between) and an arguement can be made over the use of landmines, cluster bombs and white phosphorus.

If BushCo believe their actions are justified, fine. Give them their day in court and let them attempt to justify their actions, that's what the system is for.

[mwb970]

9. Duh! /nt

[windoe]

10. Does a bear sh*t whenever he feels like it? nt

[NorthCarolina]

11. He should have been tried, convicted, incarcerated, and waterboarded

on a daily basis.

[barbtries]

12. i say yes

they should all be tried for their crimes every last one of them. i couldn't lift a candy bar from a liquor store without going to jail. they are responsible for the unnecessary and premature deaths of untold numbers of people. JUSTICE.

[Faygo Kid]

14. Of course he should. He won't be, but he is a war criminal.

So are many others in his administration. Too many to list here.

[Cleita]

15. Hell of an argument going on right now on the "Ring of Fire" between

Bobby Kennedy, Jr. and Vincent Bugliosi, two brilliant lawyers, on the feasibility of bringing BushCo to justice one way or the other. Bobby is playing the
devil's advocate. Catch it if you can wherever it might be podcast or in transcript.

[Festivito]

16. Yes, if we love our party, country and constitution.

Yes, for just about everything that makes us American.

Justice is our first establishment.

There will be some dems needing that justice also, but for the good of all things, just sentences need to be effected.