Wow! Its almost as if the US House is – what’s the word I’m looking for…? – a RUBBER STAMP.
No time for a detailed response. The relevant international law creates a duty on every country to prosecution crimes against humanity. It is strongly arguable that the actions of Bush and other rise to this standard.
I wonder if there will be a waterboarding exhibit at the Bush Library? Will there be one in fifty years? Seventy-five?
In simple language: what, specifically, is the punishment for the violations of international law that are being alleged? And where is it written?
Under US law, we could not punish someone if the crime doesn’t list a possible punishment. We say, for example, in our criminal codes that Mopery is a Class 6 felony, and the punishment for Class 6 felonies is from 1-5 years in prison, and a fine of up to $10,000.
If we tried to sentence a criminal in state court to a punishment that the law simply didn’t specify, I assume that there would be an outcry over the injustice of the attempt. And rightly so.
So – please tell me what the penalty is for the violations mentioned above are – the ones Bush is guilty of. And please tell me where those punishments are specified.
The news is the first draft of history, so “they” say.From ABC News:
Give me a hand here, Bricker. Would not “waterboarding” someone be assault and battery? Would not someone directing that activity also be guilty? Treat this as a hypothetical, please. (At least for me.)
There’s a lot more to the Rome Statute than the excerpt I quoted. Click the damn link and look for Article 7. Sheesh.
I hate to answer this way, but… it depends.
Let me explain: if I put you in a headlock and force you to shower, that’s assault and battery. If, however, you are a prisoner and I’m a prison guard, I am privileged and may legally inflict upon you acts which otherwise would be assault.
Now, the Nazis gave a bad name to the “just following orders” defense. But it remains a valid defense, vanishing only when no reasonable person could possibly have believed their orders should have been followed.
“Waterboarding” leaves several questions unanswered: first, is it permissible at all? If it’s not, is it so outrageous that no person could have believed that it WAS permissible?
It’s legally irrelevant that Joe Blow of Human Rights Watch believes waterboarding is tantamont to a mock execution. The question is – what do legal authorities say?
In my view, the practical barriers to prosecuting Mr. Bush for “war crimes” are so high as to make the discussion effectively meaningless.
Some mention has been made of the Rome Statute above, I gather. While the US is a signatory, it signed with the following reservations – that is, it specifcally declined to agree to be bound by the document in certain situations:
Even if we accept that the Rome Statute describes crimes that the President is guilty of, the US is not bound by it, because it specifically declined to agree to apply it to civilians who direct or organize the official activities of military forces of a state - a description that fits the President rather closely.
If one of the victim was french, the felonies would be defined by the french penal code, the maximum penalty would be between 15 years and life depending on the exact crime prosecuted (probably life, since there was in all likehood abduction and/or unlawful detention), french courts would have juridiction, and the rules of evidence would be governed by the code of penal procedure. Im sure plenty of other countries have such legal provisions protecting at least their own nationals.
The victim must be french because France doesn’t recognize the principle of universal competence, hence doesn’t suscribe to the obligation, mentionned in the article 129 of the Geneva convention, of prosecuting the authors of such crimes regardless of their citizenship. Other countries might, hence dozens of countries could have juridiction for the same case. If it’s considered a war crime, that is, which isn’t obvious since I’m not sure they could be considered as PoW.
Well, what do they say? Do we know? Can you imagine a scenario where a prison guard could waterboard a prisoner?
I’ve heard it argued that waterboarding is S.O.P. during training of Special Ops guys. But does that make it acceptable? I don’t see that it does. And isn’t the criteria what a “reasonable” person might think is torture? It doesn’t have to be so outrageous that no one would do it, right?
Are any of them French?
It is dubious that simple torture would constitute a crime against humanity. However, it’s the position of the Red Cross International Comitee that all signitatories have an obligation to prosecute breaches of the Geneva Convention. Individual countries might have incorporated this into their national law.
I would also think that the ICC would have juridiction providing that the victim is citizen of one of the parties of the treaty.
The reservations made by the USA would be totally irrelevant if a foreign court finds itself competent and the crime prosecutable.
I shan’t - can’t - argue with that. That is due to a complete lack of evidence, at this point in time.
So, leaving aside the OP’s argument, wouldn’t you accept that agents of the government, for whom such evidence does exist, would potentially be criminally liable for their actions?
This is true. Such exception would not apply to CIA agents.
You are, accurately, shredding the OP, who incorrectly believes the proposed legislation is to protect Bush. You are not, however, as far as I can tell, defending the (possibly) illegal actions of his agents. Do you care to address that?
(And if you don’t, in this ill-begotten thread, would you like to in a more focused thread?)
And if that foreign court had enough armed marshals to exercise actual personal jurisdiction over the US President.
That’s just an example. Why would you assume that no other country would have similar laws? AFAIK, Spain has similar provisions. You seem to argue that such offenses wouldn’t be prosecutable outside the USA (yes, you could state that technically you didn’t state such a thing, but you strongly implied it). I disagree with that stance. Apparently the crime was commited outside the USA. So, at least the courts of the country where it occured are likely competent.
So you haven’t yet bothered to read it. Is there really any point in continuing with you? :rolleyes:
I’m not thrilled about the decisions Bush has made in this arena, and not really up for a new thread defending the potentially illegal and certainly unwise actions of US agents. It’s not my intention to defend those actions.
It IS my intention to dismiss the rather silly idea that the proposed legislation is intended to protect Bush.
Wait a minute…Until now, you were arguing from a legal point of view, and suddenly you switch to practicality?
I don’t remember you asking if the US president could in practice be tried, but rather whether the perpetrator could be legally prosecuted, if the penalty was defined somewhere, if any court would have juridiction, etc, etc…
So, could you clarify? What were you arguing about, again?
OK - just as well, I have a bad cold, and I’m going to Ohio for my parent’s 50th anniversary next week. I’m willing to drop it for now.
One liberal agrees.
We’ll argue again later. 