Look, there’s a couple of scenarios that are being conflated here.
A president is arrested by the government of some third-world dictatorship for crimes against Islam, or some such. Obviously war isn’t the first step, but either the ex-president is released, or it’s war. No doubt.
A president is arrested by, say, Belgium, and charged with crimes against humanity because of some war we were involved in, that was approved by Congress. Say Bush Senior for the invasion of Panama. Never going to happen, of course. But the end result is that either the Belgians release him, or there’s hell to pay. War is farther along the path, first there’s protests, sanctions, negotiations, breakup of NATO, but for Belgium to arrest a former president on trumped up charges could eventually lead to war. But this will never happen, because Belgium won’t do it.
A president is visiting a country, any country, and rapes a 12 year old boy on video, or some such, something that’s clearly a crime in any civilized country. Ordinary crime, ordinary arrest, ordinary trial, ordinary sentence. US response is mostly protests, maybe quiet diplomacy to sweep it under the rug as much as is politically possible. But he goes to jail if need be.
An ex-president clearly commits crimes against humanity. Thing is, he doesn’t need to be arrested by Belgium, he can be charged here in the US, just like Nixon. He’s tried for his crimes by the US, he serves his sentence in the US. If the American people agreed that he was a despicable criminal we don’t need international law.
And last, a case where an ex-president, say…Bush. Arrested for some action of his, like, say…invading Iraq. By some European country, say…France. Because he lied about WMD and so forth. This would never ever ever in a million wet dreams of Michael Moore, for all the reasons listed by everyone else. But suppose it did. Thing is, President Warner isn’t going to stand for it. The only way we would stand for the arrest of Bush is if there were a break in the continuity of government, either by the defeat of the US in war, or some revolution, where the new american government didn’t recognize the authority or actions of the previous government. It would be an act of war. President Warner is going to use every diplomatic means possible to get Bush released, and eventually it’s going to be such a diplomatic nightmare that never mind what some French judge has ruled, the French president is going to take action, French military units are going to march on the jail where Bush is held, break him out, and put him on a plane back to the US.
I still say the biggest issue is a foreign power holding a president is disasterous from anational security standpoint, and no way the US government would allow it. If a president did rape and murder and entire French family, the US would still demand, with the threat of force, that he be handed over to US custody.
Without a doubt, the most concise, best-written and logical summary of the entire question! (Well, I don’t doubt it, but then you’ve seen my thought process…)
I especially enjoyed the reference to “Michael Moore’s wet dream.” We leftists adore Michael as the slightly demented uncle who says crazy stuff, but makes you think. I know a lot of people think he’s a :wally but I love him so much because he makes people like me look reasonable in contrast.
Anyway, great job. At what major university do you teach geopolitical science?
You know, my contempt is fairly extensive; I think he’s an incompetent liar. But if, in 2009, a foreign country were to abduct him and charge him with him war crimes, I’d not only support going to war over the issues, I might actually sign up. It would be an unconscionable assault on our sovereignty.
This is my first time posting, so if I get it wrong my apologies…
This debate seems to rest entirely on “recognition” of international law, or international bodies. If a “foreign” country decided to unilaterally arrest ANY US citizen for their definition of warcrimes, a definition that is not supported by the international community, then I would say “go for it” and bring the full weight of the US military to bear - and I am sure that there would be many many countries willing to support the action.
What if however, every country EXCEPT the US (or alternatively a broadly recognised and respected international tribunal) declared an ex-presdient to be a war criminal? Should the ex president still enjoy the protection of the military? What would be the reaction of the rest of the world if any action was taken to free him?
If the US decides that they are above “international / global” law, how does this make them any different from the likes of Saddam and / or any number of other tyrants? (again, my apologies, this makes me sound like a US hater) The point that needs to be considered is that just because something is done for (what we consider) “good” and “just” reasons does not put us above international law - I am sure that to the Taliban, their actions we “good” and “just”.
I seem to remember that the US has “negotiated” amnesty / non participation for all of their citizens for international war-crimes, in effect for US citizens, they only recognize US law on the matter - not international law.
Welcome aboard. I think this thread is mostly dead (it was a spin off thread from a train wrecked thread that went into the Pit…and died there) unfortunately…but FWIW your post looks fine to me.
I’d say that if every country in the world (or even a high percentage of nations) agreed to ANYTHING…well, the end times would be upon us. Seriously, I have doubts that there would ever be a set of circumstances where a large percentage of nations thought a US president was a war criminal while the majority of Americans (and more importantly our own court system) didn’t.
If it DID happen…well, what would you suggest? If the USSC decided he wasn’t a war criminal but The World™ did I’d have to go with…the rest of the world is wrong or something is definitely wrong with our system. Basically our system wouldn’t resemble anything we are familiar with today if that was the case…so its hard to judge.
Well, IANAL (maybe one of the board lawyers will wander back in and answer this correctly), but my understanding isn’t that the US doesn’t recognize international law…its that we don’t put international law over our own laws. IOW our own laws take precidence over (some? most? all?) international rulings with reguard to war crimes at least.
Not exactly. It’s more specific than that. If I’m not mistaken, the US negociated with some countries (actually with a lot of them, but many declined) an agreement according to which they wouldn’t extradite an US citizen indicted by the International Criminal Court.
!! Don’t EVER leave this board Ravenman!