# Bush as a war criminal **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 17, 2008, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-a-war-criminal/477497 "2008-12-17T01:36:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-a-war-criminal/477497/1 "2008-12-17T01:36:20Z")
Given the mechanisms now in place, is it possible to 1. Indict 2. Prosecute 3. Convict George W. Bush as a war criminal? Note that I am not asking whether he is a war criminal, nor whether he should be prosecuted as such; I’m just interested in whether the standing of the U.S. or its role in the U.N. or any other factors would preclude his being brought up before an international body on war crimes the way that other world leaders have been. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-a-war-criminal/477497/2 "2008-12-17T01:58:47Z")
It would appear that there are two standards. The POTUS has legal immunity in regards to official actions taken as the President. Unofficial or actions taken before/after his term of office, however, are not protected by this immunity.\* So unless Bush commited some war crime during his time in the military, he would appear to be immune. It is however unlikely that the Supreme Court would rule that the President’s orders can supersede the Constitution. There is no higher power than that. And the constitution, so far as I understand it, does declare international treaties as being the Law of the Land (i.e. of Constitution-level strength.) But there is no penalty for creating policy that is in conflict with Constitutional law. Those policies and laws are simply revoked. - [Nixon v. Fitzgerald - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Fitzgerald) [Clinton v. Jones - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-a-war-criminal/477497/3 "2008-12-17T02:26:33Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The POTUS has legal immunity in regards to official actions taken as the President. Unofficial or actions taken before/after his term of office, however, are not protected by this immunity.\* > > \ > > - [Nixon v. Fitzgerald - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Fitzgerald) [Clinton v. Jones - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones) Those cases deal with **civil** liability, not criminal. There are conceivable situations where “official actions taken as President” could constitute crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-a-war-criminal/477497/4 "2008-12-17T02:30:01Z")
I revise my statement slightly. > **[High crimes and misdemeanors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Crimes_and_Misdemeanors)** > > The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. > The impeachment of the King's Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, 1st Earl of Suffolk in 1386 was the first case to use this charge. One charge under this heading alleged that de la Pole broke a pro... > **[Impeachment in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States)** > > In the United States, impeachment is the process by which a legislature may bring charges against an officeholder for misconduct alleged to have been committed with a penalty of removal. Impeachment may also occur at the state level if the state or commonwealth has provisions for it under its constitution. Impeachment might also occur with tribal governments as well as at the local level of government. > The federal House of Representatives can impeach a party with a simple majority of the Hous... If the president (and perhaps former president?) is impeached by the legislature, he can then be charged for the crime. ---
**Author:** ![Sunspace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunspace/32/1250_2.png) [@Sunspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunspace)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-a-war-criminal/477497/5 "2008-12-17T02:47:05Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > It would appear that there are two standards. > > The POTUS has legal immunity in regards to official actions taken as the President… But that immunity is within the context of US law. I thought the World Court was intended as a court of last resort, where the accused could be brought to trial for actions against international law, even if the actions of the accused were legal by the laws of the accused’s own country, and the accused’s own legal system was not going to prosecute a legal-to-it action under a foreign law. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-a-war-criminal/477497/6 "2008-12-17T02:59:43Z")
Yes, I meant on an international level. _Sigh_ I seem to have a knack for poorly-phrased OPs. I don’t think there is such a thing as “war crimes” within the U.S. criminal law, though I admit ignorance here. At the U.S. level, if criminal prosecution was warranted, I imagine it would begin with impeachment while he was a sitting president. ---
**Author:** ![Cerowyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/82dd89/32.png) [@Cerowyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerowyn)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-a-war-criminal/477497/7 "2008-12-17T03:02:36Z")
The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court where such crimes would be tried, so they’re not going to offer up anyone charged by that Court. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-as-a-war-criminal/477497/8 "2008-12-17T03:20:46Z")
> [@Cerowyn](#): > > The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court where such crimes would be tried, so they’re not going to offer up anyone charged by that Court. That would certainly prevent extradition, but would it be enough to prevent a trial in absentia? I imagine that it is convenient for many nations whose international behavior is not always above reproach to refuse to recognize it.