Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

By Jan Frel, AlterNet

http://alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/

<snip>

Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:

"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."

It's that simple. Ferencz called the invasion a "clear breach of law," and dismissed the Bush administration's legal defense that previous U.N. Security Council resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War justified an invasion in 2003. Ferencz notes that the first Bush president believed that the United States didn't have a U.N. mandate to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein; that authorization was simply to eject Hussein from Kuwait. Ferencz asked, "So how do we get authorization more than a decade later to finish the job? The arguments made to defend this are not persuasive."

Writing for the United Kingdom's Guardian, shortly before the 2003 invasion, international law expert Mark Littman echoed Ferencz: "The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution of the Security Council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the Security Council."

Challenges to the legality of this war can also be found at the ground level. First Lt. Ehren Watada, the first U.S. commissioned officer to refuse to serve in Iraq, cites the rules of the U.N. Charter as a principle reason for his dissent...

[gratuitous]

1. It will take political will and time

But yes, I believe Mr. Bush could be prosecuted for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Some of the evidence has leaked out and certainly leads one to believe that he has committed such crimes. It will, however, take a dedicated prosecution, a change in the prevailing political winds, and time to develop all the evidence, but it's possible.

You'd think the example of Pinochet would act as a brake on some of the more oppressive tendencies of maximum dictators like Bush. But apparently international tribunals don't serve much deterrent value, any more than the the death penalty purportedly does. It's up to the decent people of the world to hold rogue leaders accountable to the rest of humanity. But the mills will grind slowly.

[havocmom]

2. He's the twit who keeps insisting he decides

There have been a LOT of very bad decisions. Every gang needs their patsy. bush is Cheney's.

[Time for change]

3. Yes

In my humble opinion, it seems quite obvious that Bush can and should be prosecuted for war crimes. The Iraq war is one charge on which he should be prosecuted. He not only went to war without the approval of the Security Council, or any reasonable international support, against a country which posed no immediate threat to the United States, but he was actively engaged in trumping up false evidence for the invasion, as justification for it.

In addtion, he should be prosecuted for violations of the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners of war, and even his own Supreme Court has agreed on that.

Of course, he won't be prosecuted, not at this time at least. He is currently too powerful, and I don't think that the UN wants to take him on. But they should.

[movonne]

4. God, I hope so...

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. The Senate was debating giving the Admin and soldiers immunity

I wish I could recall exactly when (seems like it was just about the time that Abu Graib was breaking), the Senate was debating over giving immunity to Bush etal along with soldiers.

It was strange and infuriating to watch. You didn't know exactly what was up at the time, then Abu Graib and the torture memos came to light...big time. They were trying to put into law that no members of the Administration or armed forces could be tried in an international court of law for war crimes. It struck me odd that they were fighting tooth and nail to clarify that no one from the Administration could be tried.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

7. The U.S. Senate...

...has no rightful authority or domain over international law. For our government to take such a position makes us a rogue state, and we are now widely considered to be just that.

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. That was my thought at the time

How can they think they can give cover to the Bush Administration away from International Courts? I watched while my chin hit the floor.

[bdamomma]

20. sooner or later the international community will act to stop this bastard

he or we are not immuned. I hope they get them all, they are all criminals, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Negroponte, and the list goes on and on...........

[leveymg]

9. Immunity can't be legislated and pardons will make no difference.

With the Hamdan decision, there is no longer any question about it. The Bush Administration is subject to the Geneva Convention and has violated it.

The Geneva Convention, along with the UN Conventions on Torture and Genocide, contain no "escape clauses" that might allow a signatory state to withdraw after ratification. That just isn't an option, as it was with Kyoto Accords and the ABM Treaty. Contrary to Rovian urban myth, U.S. officials are subject to these treaties, as well as to domestic law that, among other things, makes torture committed by Americans abroad a capital offense.

Similarly, all signatories are bound to enforce these standing treaties on war crimes, torture and genocide. If Dubya pardons anyone, that's a signal for the rest of the world to convene an investigative commission and issue arrest warrants that must be enforced.

Sooner or later, all of these guys from Dubya on down to John Yoo are going to have to face trial.

[vickitulsa]

10. This is exactly how I see it, too.

Since the secret torture news -- complete with photos -- from Abu Graib broke, I have thought the "tipping point" for the world's tolerance of Bush/U.S. behavior beyond our borders would finally be reached and demand that war crime prosecutions eventually be made.

The key word, to me, is that "eventually." I am hoping similar sorts of legal actions will be taken from within the U.S. before or by then. Not only should representatives and senators elected by the people of the United States NOT be seeking to protect lawbreakers in this administration, they should instead be at the forefront of those demanding prosecution for the crimes Bush and friends have committed!

IF this were the case, I think the world will, in time, come to forgive most Americans for how things got so out of hand here in the first place. However, if we don't try to legally punish the offenders and reclaim our own government, I'm afraid the world in general will see ALL of us as just as guilty as the members of this administration. That's something we ought to be thinking about, IMO.

We should understand that during the World Cup competition that was just held in Germany, that country was still trying very hard to regain the respect and indeed the forgiveness from the world that it lost during Hitler's reign. Bush launched the first major war of the 21st Century, for heaven's sake! It was NOT in defense of our country, and I think it is not stretching things at all to compare GWB to the worst mass murderer of the last century.

And we should keep in mind that he's not done yet.

About 25 years ago, a state senator came to speak to the adult "Sunday school" class at a Unitarian church where I was visiting. During the Q&A session, I asked this senator why it was that it takes the government so long to get anything done. He had a pretty good answer for me, I thought. He said that if it did NOT take so long to make and change laws, all sorts of craziness would happen in a hurry, leaving a terrible mess for cleanup later.

The recent GWB quote where he said you could "get a lot done much faster" if you acted alone ("you" in this case meaning HIM) should have made it clear to those who hadn't yet seen the light that what he has really wanted all along is just to be a dictator. And one with worldwide power!

I sure hope criminal charges are eventually brought against him, or the world -- and especially our country and people -- are in for worse things ahead than we have yet dreamed of....

[Warpy]

6. Could be and should be but probably won't be

because I don't see us getting rid of the GOP and the wimps on the Democratic side of the aisle. They're all whipped, and they're mostly likely to be returned this year.

Congress trembles before the mighty Executive. While they are protecting their pensions and portfolios, it's likely to remain so.

[chill_wind]

11. I'd agree. "Could be, should be", but what is the reality?

Especially in any reasonable future. Even according to the author, in his own assessment of the present international courts?

Dupe in "Greatest Threads":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1600791&mesg_id=1600791

[vickitulsa]

18. "Dupe in 'Greatest Threads'" -- Yes, I just noticed this.

Isn't this the sort of situation where the mods will "blend" two threads? :shrug: I hope so -- lots of good stuff here that isn't in the other thread on Greatest page.

[paparush]

12. No - We have a Law, The American Service Members Protection Act

which gives the President the power to use all means necessary to free American Citizens being held by any International Court.....

<<SNIP>>
SEC. 2008. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

1. AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.

2. PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED- The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons:

1. Covered United States persons.

2. Covered allied persons.

3. Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government.
<</SNIP>

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/othr/misc/23425.htm

[leveymg]

14. This does NOT immunize U.S. officials from prosecution under

the Geneva Convention or the UN Conventions Against Torture and Genocide.

Before any international court is convened, the U.S. would be given ample opportunity to prosecute its own military and nationals. The Uniform Code of Military Conduct applies to U.S. service people accused of war crimes or other offenses forbidden under U.S. law, which include offense prohbited by the Geneva Convention and the UN Conventions against torture and genocide.

Only if the U.S. fails to make a good-faith effort to prosecute would any international tribunal begin to assume jurisdiction. That point has not been reached, yet. That threshold would be breached, however, if Bush started handing out pardons, or Congress passed laws attempting to withdraw the U.S. from its treaty obligations.

The Delta Team isn't going to be dropping into the Hague.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

15. This has no more validity...

...than my putting forward a formal written declaration to supersede all municipal, state, federal, and international law that: "I, Mr_Jefferson_24, have the unassailable, legal right to drive above the speed limit and run traffic lights at will with complete and total impunity." Of course, I have not the power or resources to enforce such a declaration, which is required in the might makes right world in which we live.

This is the essence of such SEC. 2008---We simply refuse to recognize international law as applied to us. We're viewed internationally as a rogue state because that's exactly what we are.

[paparush]

16. I'm just saying...the groundwork is laid for the Prez to take whatever

steps to keep US citizens out of just such tribunals.

Try Bush in Absentia! I'm all for it!

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

19. They absolutely should do this...

...the international press would be all over it and they'd do heavy PR damage to BushCo. Even our own corporate owned MSM would be hard pressed and probably couldn't just completely ingore a war crimes trial of Chimpy in absentia. Love to see a strong international movement for this take form.

[The Magistrate]

13. The Charge In Your Excerpt, Sir

Would not hold much water: it is a pretty technical question, and there have been a great many uses of force without U.N. approval that have gone unpunished since the item the writer cites was promulgated.

Much better grounds are suggested by the recent Supreme Court decision affirming the the Geneva Accords, and specifically Common Article Three, are indeed the law of the land here and apply to the conduct of the Executive in the current hostilities. There is abundant evidence both of gross violations of that article, and of Executive complicity in and direction of those violations.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

17. I'm certainly no legal scholar, but am inclined to agree with you. nt.