Could a US president be taken for war crimes when on travel outside the US?

Great Debates
1

Version 2.

It IS an interersting question that unfortunately got derailed (by the OP of course) in this thread, now train wrecking nicely (and not unexpectedly) in The Pit.

The premise though has at its core an interesting question…could a former US president be taken into custody merely by stepping off a plane in Europe (or some other nation) and tried for War Crimes? And what would the US’s likely reaction be if this happened? As some in the other thread say, what COULD the US do (I can think of a number of things but will hold off and post them later)?

Finally, how likely is something like that to happen? Since the other thread was dedicated to GW (another huge surprise considering the OP, ehe? :wink: ), lets use him as a ready example. In theory at least he has been the most controversial president to those outside the US…at least in living memory. So…post-2009, if GW decides to take a trip to Europe, how likely would it be that he’d be summarily arrested and dragged off to a war crimes trial somewhere in Europe? Else where throughout the globe? And what are the possible reactions here in the US…both from our government and from the people?

Please, lets try and keep THIS thread IN GD and not have another train wreck. Hopefully Aleric is fixated on the Pit thread that this is spun off off so…

-XT

2

What’s interesting about it? I will not happen in any conceivable scenario. One might as well ask what would happen if Bush were crowned king.

Again, this is one of those things that would only only happen in a world so different from today as to be meaningless. In that case, the US would have severed all ties with NATO, and put itself in such a position that former presidents wouldn’t dare travel outside the US.

3

[QUOTE=John Mace]
What’s interesting about it? I will not happen in any conceivable scenario. One might as well ask what would happen if Bush were crowned king.
[/QUOTE]

Well, its interesting (IMHO) because it will show exactly WHY its so implausable that it could happen. There are a lot of folks who think its a reasonable scenerio, both from the perspective that Bush actually is a war criminal and from the perspective that the US wouldn’t or couldn’t do anything about it.

So, what I’m asking for here is WHY it would be unlikely (or likely), what the could (or couldn’t do)…and the most likely thing the US WOULD (or wouldn’t) do if this unlikely scenerio happened. Because, again, there ARE a lot of people (even on this board) who obviously DON’T think its all that implausable.

-XT

4

[QUOTE=xtisme]
So, what I’m asking for here is WHY it would be unlikely (or likely), what the could (or couldn’t do)…and the most likely thing the US WOULD (or wouldn’t) do if this unlikely scenerio happened. Because, again, there ARE a lot of people (even on this board) who obviously DON’T think its all that implausable.

-XT
[/QUOTE]
There are four main reasons why it would be unlikely: The U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, The U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Marine Corps. Taking the President of the United States into custody against his will would be considered an act of war.

5

I remain firm in my opinion that the general public would not stand for it, and that it is as equal in potential to start WWIII as assassinating a grand duke of a minor country was to star WWI.

6

[QUOTE=pravnik]
There are four main reasons why it would be unlikely: The U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, The U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Marine Corps. Taking the President of the United States into custody against his will would be considered an act of war.
[/QUOTE]

While I agree (somewhat) with what you say, I have to point out GW would be the FORMER president of the US.

-XT

7

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, its interesting (IMHO) because it will show exactly WHY its so implausable that it could happen. There are a lot of folks who think its a reasonable scenerio, both from the perspective that Bush actually is a war criminal and from the perspective that the US wouldn’t or couldn’t do anything about it.

So, what I’m asking for here is WHY it would be unlikely (or likely), what the could (or couldn’t do)…and the most likely thing the US WOULD (or wouldn’t) do if this unlikely scenerio happened. Because, again, there ARE a lot of people (even on this board) who obviously DON’T think its all that implausable.
[/QUOTE]

It wasn’t an accident that the other thread ended up in the pit. The only “interesting” discussion there is can only take place there. That’s all.

8

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
I remain firm in my opinion that the general public would not stand for it, and that it is as equal in potential to start WWIII as assassinating a grand duke of a minor country was to star WWI.
[/QUOTE]

You are convinced the US would risk war over the abduction of a former president? And that the US citizens would (by and large) support that? Do you think we’d jump right to war or begin with sanctions/embargo against the country(ies) involved? Do you think that the other nations out there feel the same way?

-XT

9

[QUOTE=John Mace]
It wasn’t an accident that the other thread ended up in the pit. The only “interesting” discussion there is can only take place there. That’s all.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I would put forth that the reason the other thread ended up in the Pit was due to the OP himself. But OK John. Though I think you could add something to the discussion, if it bothers you by all means don’t peek into the thread anymore. :slight_smile:

-XT

10

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
I remain firm in my opinion that the general public would not stand for it, and that it is as equal in potential to start WWIII as assassinating a grand duke of a minor country was to star WWI.
[/QUOTE]

Imagine if Nixion had been somehow nabbed by Cambodia or Vietnam in the early 90’s, I don’t know if it’s a given that we’d go to war. I’m sure there would be consequnces: threats and sanctions and seizing of assets. But would we really send thousands of troops back into SE asia after one widely reviled octagenarian.

11

[QUOTE=xtisme]
While I agree (somewhat) with what you say, I have to point out GW would be the FORMER president of the US.

-XT
[/QUOTE]
I see now I missed that part (your thread title does just say U.S. President, not that I’m griping at you or anything). Still, I’ll stick with my answer. Kidnapping even a former President would be a near-suicidal act of war, no sanctions, no embargos, no negotiations, no nothing. The only nation on Earth who could even hope to hang with the U.S. in that regard would be China, and they wouldn’t be crazy enough to try even if they did care.

12

[QUOTE=pravnik]
I see now I missed that part (your thread title does just say U.S. President, not that I’m griping at you or anything). Still, I’ll stick with my answer. Kidnapping even a former President would be a near-suicidal act of war, no sanctions, no embargos, no negotiations, no nothing. The only nation on Earth who could even hope to hang with the U.S. in that regard would be China, and they wouldn’t be crazy enough to try even if they did care.
[/QUOTE]

Even at the risk of Nuclear retaliation? For just one person? It is important to think of any one person as potentially disposable when weighed against the safety of many. A contry which allready faces the threat of the whole US armed forces might not see it as such a great additional risk, if they have a chance of kidnapping a previous president and using them as a politicl pawn and putting them on some sort of trial. An ex-president visiting Israel or South Korea might be potentially captured and taken to Iran, Libya, parts of Iraq, or North Korea, China respectively. Though really I would doubt China would consider such a thing as they rely so much on good foreign trade.
I could see a mobilization of forces, and stand off, but direct declaration of war would seem an overreaction as a first response to such an event.

13

If you think a military response is unlikely, consider the effect if we DON’T respond militarily. It means open season for kidnapping US citizens. If we won’t use force to rescue a former president, we’ve pretty much signalled that anyone who wishes can kidnap any one of us for any reason they like.

War is the correct response. It’s not that one person is worth war, it’s that it won’t STOP at one person.

The first response is that we intern all citizens of the kidnapping country that are within US borders. Next step is freezing all assets of the kidnapping country. Next step is freezing all the assets of all citizens of the kidnapping country. Next step is a total economic embargo, including pressuring every other country in the world to join the embargo. Next step is to send the Navy Seals for an extraction. If that doesn’t work, then the next step is bombing. Next step is landing of ground troops and seizure of the kidnapping nation’s capital. Next step is trial of the officials who ordered the kidnapping. Next step is installing a pro-American government. Next step is unfreezing the assets and releasing the interned citizens of the kidnapping country.

14

[QUOTE=Bippy the Beardless]
Even at the risk of Nuclear retaliation? For just one person? It is important to think of any one person as potentially disposable when weighed against the safety of many.
[/QUOTE]
I’d argue he’s not one person, he’s one former head of state. Taking him hostage is several degrees up the ladder from taking the local ambassador hostage. It’s an affront to the nation itself.

Secondly, turn that around: what country is going to start a nuclear war and devastate it’s own landscape and infrastructure to try one person in a criminal trial? We make a point not making diplomatic missions to countries that crazy.

15

[QUOTE=pravnik]
I’d argue he’s not one person, he’s one former head of state. Taking him hostage is several degrees up the ladder from taking the local ambassador hostage. It’s an affront to the nation itself.

Secondly, turn that around: what country is going to start a nuclear war and devastate it’s own landscape and infrastructure to try one person in a criminal trial? We make a point not making diplomatic missions to countries that crazy.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Which country is going to want to militarily confront the world’s only superpower just to make a point? Release the prez or we start bombing your capital city. The answer is a no-brainer: release the prez. Actually, you anticipate this to begin with and don’t aprehend him in the first place.

16

Yeah, but that’s not the point, John. The question is ‘could it happen’? And I would argue that the arrest and trial of other former national leaders (a la Milosevic) certainly says that it could. A former President who was considered guilty of war crimes could certainly be arrested and end up in the dock in The Hague.

NOTE: this differs from Iran or someone just grabbing him and heading for a show trial.

I also agree that it’s a casus belli to simply seize a former President. Frankly, if a President had degenerated to the point where an actual War Crimes indictment was occuring I think there would be significant motivation and support from Congress and the electorate to hand him over through normal channels.

But seizing him on travel? Expect a company of Marines at your door. A country, to be taken at all seriously, needs to be able to prevent other nations from seizing it’s citizen’s unilaterally.

Most won’t get this but some will: “Men are not potatoes”.

17

[QUOTE=John Mace]
What’s interesting about it? I will not happen in any conceivable scenario.
[/quote]
Why not ? It’s not like we would dare invade, say, France or any other country with nukes. Given the level of anti-Americanism I see, I find it quite possible; not all that likely, but perfectly possible. For that matter, if I were Bush I wouldn’t leave the US right now, much less when he’s out of office.

[QUOTE=pravnik]
The U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, The U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Marine Corps.
[/QUOTE]
None of which matter if the nation in question has nukes. Besides, America is a bully; we won’t take on anyone who isn’t too crippled or small to fight back. If a European country did grab Bush and imprison or execute him, we’d put sanctions on them, at most.

[QUOTE=pravnik]
It means open season for kidnapping US citizens.
[/QUOTE]
It already is; if some country wants to bother, they can just say “We thought he was a terrorist ! You do it all the time !”.

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
The first response is that we intern all citizens of the kidnapping country that are within US borders.
[/QUOTE]
And therefore lose the moral high ground, right from the start; I guess it’s the American thing to do.

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Next step is a total economic embargo, including pressuring every other country in the world to join the embargo.
[/QUOTE]
And if the rest of the world does it to us, instead ?

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
If that doesn’t work, then the next step is bombing. Next step is landing of ground troops and seizure of the kidnapping nation’s capital.
[/QUOTE]
And if they are nuclear armed, and say “Remove your troops from our capital, or we remove your capital, period” ?

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
releasing the interned citizens of the kidnapping country.
[/QUOTE]
We wouldn’t do that for years, if ever; it wouldn’t look good when they started talking about how we raped and tortured them. And they would, because true or not, it would be believed at this point.

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Secondly, turn that around: what country is going to start a nuclear war and devastate it’s own landscape and infrastructure to try one person in a criminal trial?
[/QUOTE]
Probably none, except maybe NK. To stop an invasion to rescue him and topple the local government ? Quite a few; most, I’d say.

18

On the Straight Dope? I expect 90% of us will get the reference. But it doesn’t matter if one of us gets the reference, or one million of us get the reference, the principle is still the same.

Anyway, if the world communit is convinced a US official has commited crimes against humanity, the correct thing would be to indict him and request for the US to hand him over. Strike that, the first thing would be to present the evidence to US prosecutors and ask them to try the ex-official under US law.

19

[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
A country, to be taken at all seriously, needs to be able to prevent other nations from seizing it’s citizen’s unilaterally.
[/QUOTE]
We do it all the time to other country’s people ( and torture them ) and they still take each other seriously.

20

[QUOTE=pravnik]
I see now I missed that part (your thread title does just say U.S. President, not that I’m griping at you or anything). Still, I’ll stick with my answer. Kidnapping even a former President would be a near-suicidal act of war, no sanctions, no embargos, no negotiations, no nothing. The only nation on Earth who could even hope to hang with the U.S. in that regard would be China, and they wouldn’t be crazy enough to try even if they did care.
[/QUOTE]

No, its my bad. It was SUPPOSED to say ‘Could a FORMER US President be taken for war crimes when on travel outside the US?’ I screwed up the OP basically.

I agree that kidnapping a former US President would be about equal to taking the actual sitting President…it would certainly have grave repercussions. And I think that other nations who MIGHT consider doing this to make a point already know this…thats why I think its fairly inplausable (as John Mace keeps saying) that something like this ever COULD happen. I certainly don’t see the Europeans doing anything of the sort with reguards to Bush…on any other US President (unless we have one that REALLY goes off the deep end…in which case all bets are off).

-XT