And who would expect the US to comply, no matter what the President/former President did ? If there’s anything America is known for, it’s arrogance, selfishness and self righteousness; the hypothetical President would have to be videotaped eating babies flown in from the offended country before we’d consider such a request.
To turn it around, why couldn’t the US invade France if sufficiently provoked? Why would France risk nuclear war with the US over this (recall WE are nuclear armed as well…a point you seem to have forgotten)?
I think that if GW Bush goes to France he will certainly be opening himself up to a certain level of public abuse (assuming the French even notice he’s there with all that rioting going on :))…but I don’t think he has anything at all to fear from the French GOVERNMENT.
I think you underestimate what the US is likely or not likely to do…as you overestimate what other nations faced with challenging the US are likely or unlikely to do. Again, turn it around…recall that WE have nukes too.
Skipping through a few obvious rants…
We all go down together then. You are aware of the percentage of world trade that goes through the US, right? I’d say it would hurt THEM even more than it would hurt us (and it would completely cripple us). So (assuming any other nation was crazy enough to join the first with support for taking, say, Bush captive for trial), it would be a suicide pact just to make a point. How is this wise?
-XT
Because we wouldn’t dare. Like I said, we’re bullies.
Which usually tends to keep people from shooting at each other; since our biggest advantage is military, that favors everybody else with nukes.
They’d suffer massive economic problems; we wouldn’t be able to even build what we need; the factories are over there.
When did political leaders start acting wise ? I never said it was a good idea; that wasn’t the OP’s question.
Good lord, the idea that a lawful arrest of a former president, especially in a country friendly to the United States, would instantly rush the US to war is just absurd.
First, the situation posited – a former President visiting a European country being arrested by that country’s authorities for suspicion of serious crimes – has nothing to do with kidnaping. Just because most of us would prefer not to see a former President – even one who quite a few of us don’t like – suffer the indignity of being booked and fingerprinted, doesn’t mean that it is a criminal offense.
Second, former Presidents are no more entitled to be privileged from arrest in foreign countries than you or I, unless you happen to enjoy the benefits of traveling on a diplomatic passport.
Third, the idea that Belgium would face immediate retaliation because it arrested a former President is a painfully ignorant view of how modern democracies go to war. It’s also an intentionally narrow-minded view of what other options the US government would have in such a situation.
Fourth, there isn’t ever going to be no damn President who would ever set foot in a place in which he would have any reason to question that he would risk arrest on what is almost certainly trumped-up political charges. In other words, don’t hold your breath waiting for former President George W. Bush to take a vacation in Pyongyang in 2010.
Fifth, there isn’t a damn ally of the US who would dream of doing such a thing. Not more than two or three years ago, a Belgian prosecutor started threatening to arrest Donald Rumsfeld. The Belgian government made it clear very quickly that no such thing would ever happen. Again, this isn’t because a friendly, modern democratic country fears a military reprisal, but because countries with rational governments tend not to want to embarass themselves by confronting close allies, risk splitting major defensive alliances, hazard their status in the world economy, and imperil the trust and friendship among all of its other friends simply in order to achieve a short term poltiical pipe dream that has no existential advantage to that country. If, for example, Andorrans were so fed up that they wanted to see Dubya put in the dock for the Iraq war, the government would surely have enough common sense just to not let Bush enter the country.
I suppose it is theoretically possible that a foreign country could arrest a visiting former President – as others have said, lots of former heads of government have faced justice in third countries after being deposed – but friendly, rational countries don’t just go around doing such things to each other.
Emphasis added. That’s the whole point. It wouldn’t be lawful.
Why ? We’ve done it.
Whose law?
There are intenational tribunals which would consider themselves to have authority over anyone on the planet. (Thinking the UN, the Hague war trials, …)
It would be an incredably unlikely situation that any group respected by many of the countries of the world would be ready to press charges against a former US president, but there is a presidence in pressing charges against former eastern block countries presidents.
I would susspect that in such a case, the request would be made to try the expresident in a neutral country. If no such action proved possible the ex-president might well be tried in abscentia. Should they be found guilty then it would seem the ex-president would avoid going to any country which supported the trial. But if the ex-president arogantly weant to such a country he could expect to be imprisoned like any other charged and convicted fellon.
In those cases I doubt many countries would back US agression in rescuing the ex-president.
The scenario is extremely unlikely, but I guess an ex-president who is also ex-military might have some serious skeleton in his closet that could be discovered by a foreign power. I would expect though that the US would much more likely use the information to discredit the ex-president as doing such a thing is always a good way for those currently in power to place blaim for current problems on previous administrators.
If I understand correctly what the OP meant, he was refering to a lawful arrest, not a kidnapping.
Once again, unless I don’t get what this thread is all about, there’s no kidnapping involved, and american citizens can already be put in custody in any other nation, be it for war crimes or for DUI.
Why do you assume the USA would start a nuclear war over this?
Huh? ountries do this all the time. And Spain didn’t ask permission to Chile before issuing an arrest warrant for Pinochet, nor did the UK before placing him in custody.
American exceptionalism. Our President should be immune to all laws everywhere, because he’s the American President, not a foreign heathen. We think it’s fine for us to invade other countries and put their leaders on trial.
No, it wouldn’t be kidnapping, though I suppose it would depend on one’s perspective. From the US’s viewpoint it may appear that way if a foreign government grabbed Bush as he was leaving his plane and put him on trial.
Well, I agree. Though the idea that the US wouldn’t go to war in any case because we are ‘bullies’ (I assume meaning we are cowards who only beat up on the weak but shy away when the going gets tough) is equally absurd IMHO. (though I agree its a highly unlikely scenerio) I think we’d probably start off by condemning things and other diplomatic moves, followed by sanctions and embargos…perhaps even a blockade of some sort (which is just shy of a declaration of war…or perhaps even crosses the line). If that didn’t get the country in questions attention then…well, I’m not sure how far we’d go.
I don’t know where the kidnapping thing came from…it wasn’t my intent in the OP.
Why? Are you saying that if the US didn’t feel that the former President in question had done anything wrong (from a legal perspective) that we’d just sit back and let it happen anyway?? You seem to be a lawyer type…could you explain why in legal terms the US would do this?
Agreed
Right. I could see him going to Europe though…and in some folks minds there seems to be a question as to what the Europeans would do (thus the original thread). I agree, the answer is: Nothing. However, its an interesting intellectual excersize (well, from my perspective…John Mace and perhaps others disagree).
Exactly.
-XT
Let me ask you something…do you think the US would arrest and put on trial, say, the President of France? Or the Prime Minister of Great Britian? How about the Chancellor of Germany? The President of Russia?
Many of your posts seem to be of the anti-American rant variety in this thread…without much in the way of a grounding in reality. Are you here to debate or just to rant Der Trihs? Because to me it looks like the answer is to rant. Instead of ranting, could you do more than screeds against the US and try and engage in the thread? I know from OTHER theads you can do this…I’ve seen you.
-XT
Since they are white and from countries that have or can easily make nukes, no. Like I said, we’re bullies. I also forgot to mention American racism; I note we have no problem with the arrest of brown leaders like Noreiga and Saddam.
Well… my post got eaten by the masters. Shorter version :
It’s not only about the government wishes. If a judge issues a warrant and get the visiting former head of state/government arrested, what is the governement (even assuming it doesn’t like the concept) to do? I do not doubt that it might pull a lot of weight, but in the case of Pinochet mentionned above, it’s not like Spain or the UK were extremely happy with the situation. He still went through the whole judicial process.
John Mace(and some others) are convinced that we would jump right up and bring out the big guns if Bush was arrested overseas after leaving office, but I’m wondering if it’s because of the fact that he would be a former president or because he is a Republican former president. Let’s have a slight change in the scenario: With a Republican controlled White House and Congress, it is Bill Clinton that is arrested overseas for some unnamed crime. Would you still be willing to go to war instantly, or would you try to negotiate behind the scenes first?
Ok…lets say Bill Clinton got arrested tomorrow by, um, Bosnia I suppose. Or say he’s visiting Africa and the Somolians get him. Fair enough?
It would be exactly the same thing IMHO…because I don’t think party comes into it at all. Bill Clinton is not guilty of any crimes in the US…and a government taking him and putting him on trial would be a slap to the US that we couldn’t ignore. I think we’d start off with a strong note and as I said diplomatic and economic pressure…followed by escallating measure including embargo, sanctions and perhaps even blockade. If all that failed…well, I think we may use a military option at that point of some kind or the other.
Zero difference between Clinton and Bush in this instance IMHO…or any other president. The only caviot is if WE found him guilty…but then WE would be putting him on trial, not some other nation.
-XT
How would the judiciary of a nation GET him without the cooperation of the government in question? How would he be arrested and taken to trial in your own country unless the French government cooperated?
-XT
You keep saying this as if its meaningful. It really isn’t. Unless you also wish to acknowledge that by your standards EVERY government is a ‘bully’.
We didn’t have a problem arresting Milosevic (hopefully spelled that right…too lazy to look it up) and HE is white. Let me ask you a quick question…what ‘White’ leader out there SHOULD we arrest but are too cowardly to do so?
-XT