# Deliberate violation of the Geneva Conventions on prisoners grounds for impeachment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 20, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076 "2004-05-20T00:47:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/1 "2004-05-20T00:47:23Z")
Let us presume, for the purpose of this thread, that the factual allegations, but not necessarily the conclusions drawn, in [Seymour Hersh’s New Yorker story “The Gray Zone” are true.](http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact) Specifically, that Donald Rumsefeld personally approved two projects. One created s black project in Afghanistan and elsewhere involving interrogation techniques not adhering to the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners of war. The Bush Administration made public statements to the effect that Al Queda terrorists were not entitled to the protection of the conventions, and this project was a logical outcome of this policy position. The second project Rumsfeld approved was to extend the interrogation techniqes into the Iraqi military prison system. Unfortunately the program ran into some disastrous scale-up issues, as well as apparently unexpected legal challenges, resulting in the mess as it’s unfolded so far. Let us take this presumption two stepa further. Suppose Donald Rumsfeld sought and received the approval of President Bush for this second project. The Bush Administration had already publicly stated that prisoners in the Iraq War would be given the protections of the Conventions. And suppose that President Bush, acying as Commander in Chief in a time of war, and in an attempt to beat down a simmering and growing insurrection, ordered the decision to remain secret from the Congress to preserve the c;andestine nature of the project. Under these theoretical facts, would the House be justified in voting charges for an impeachment. Would the Senate be justified in sustaining them? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/2 "2004-05-20T01:46:33Z")
The law on Presidential impeachment is pretty thin. “High crimes and misdemeanors” pretty much means whatever the House and Senate can be talked into believing it means. I personally think President Bush is impeachable on the basis of using the resources of the U.S. government to fight a war for private (and still somewhat unclear) reasons. But what I personally think doesn’t mean anything unless enough Congresspersons were to agree with me that impeachment proceedings were started as a result. Likewise, I think that if Bush authorized an order of Rumsfeld’s to extend the techniques used in Afghanistan and Guantanamo (where the Geneva conventions might or might not apply) to Iraq (where they do), that sort of treaty violation strikes me as being at least as high a crime as perjuring oneself about one’s intimate relationships. But again, unless a sufficient number of Congresspersons shared my thoughts, that wouldn’t matter in the least. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/3 "2004-05-20T03:27:35Z")
> [@Boyo Jim](#): > > Under these theoretical facts, would the House be justified in voting charges for an impeachment. Would the Senate be justified in sustaining them? Well, Gonzalez expressed serious concerns about prosecutions under the [War Crimes Act of 1996](http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:PN17kChBu2UJ:www2.uakron.edu/low/War%2520Crimes%2520Act%2520of%25201996.doc+1996+%22war+crimes+act%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8) (U.S.C. § 2441) in his Jan 25, 2002 memo to the president (available here[as pdf](http://msnbc.com/modules/newsweek/pdf/gonzales_memo.pdf)) > [@](#): > > •By concluding that GPW does not apply to al Qaeda and the Taliban, we avoid foreclosing options for the future, particularly against nonstate actors. > •Substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the war crimes act (18 U.S.C. 2441). From the Act: > [@](#): > > Definition.–As used in this section the term war crime means any conduct– > (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party; > … > Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. From Gonzalez’ memo referring to AQ and the Taliban (NOT Iraq): > [@](#): > > “War crime” for these purposes is defined to include any grave breach of GPW or any violation of common article 3 thereof (such as “outrages against personal dignity”). Some of these provisions apply (if the GPW applies) regardless of whether the individual being detained qualifies as a POW So we’ve got breaches of the war crimes act serious enough to invoke the death penalty, and the president enacted policy to ensure those breaches took place (according to the OP’s hypothetical). That’s grounds for impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/4 "2004-05-20T03:32:42Z")
Look, Ma, Dick Cheney fans! \ ---
**Author:** ![Master\_Wang-Ka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/master_wang-ka/32/3325_2.png) [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/5 "2004-05-20T03:55:27Z")
> [@Mehitabel](#): > > Look, Ma, Dick Cheney fans! > > \ Yeah, but it would be kind of nice to know that you can get impeached for more than just dinking an intern. In theory, the way the OP is phrased, sure. In practice, ain’t gonna happen. Before a largely Republican Congress would go after a Republican president in this manner, it would have to be clear to everyone that NOT going after the president was political suicide; he’d have to be another Nixon. Not that he ain’t workin’ on it, but I don’t quite believe he’s there, yet. Secondly, like Nixon, his staffers would have to be willing to incriminate him. I have no clue if Bush personally approved any of this prisoner-abuse nonsense, but if he did, Rummy would have to be willing to point the finger, and not dive on his sword to protect the Prez. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/6 "2004-05-20T05:16:18Z")
> [@Master Wang-Ka](#): > > Yeah, but it would be kind of nice to know that you can get impeached for more than just dinking an intern. > > In theory, the way the OP is phrased, sure. In practice, ain’t gonna happen. Before a largely Republican Congress would go after a Republican president in this manner, it would have to be clear to everyone that NOT going after the president was political suicide; he’d have to be another Nixon. Not that he ain’t workin’ on it, but I don’t quite believe he’s there, yet. > > Secondly, like Nixon, his staffers would have to be willing to incriminate him. I have no clue if Bush personally approved any of this prisoner-abuse nonsense, but if he did, Rummy would have to be willing to point the finger, and not dive on his sword to protect the Prez. Let’s not forget that some long-time Republican loyalist aides, like Richard Clarke, are _already_ trashing the president. If Rumsfeld were actually facing a criminal trial and jail time, and that seems extremely far fetched at this point, he might point a finger. A while back the Bush Administration fought and threatened and got American soldiers immunity from prosecition from the International War Crimes Tribunal – I may be misremembering the name of the court. The story of course, was that America could not be hampered by whiners who could drag American officials into court on “trumped up” charges. IMO the administration knew back then that American forces were likely to be commiting acts considered by courts of law to be war crimes. ---
**Author:** ![clayton\_e](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c57346/32.png) [@clayton\_e](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clayton_e)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/7 "2004-05-20T16:06:28Z")
> [@Mehitabel](#): > > \ But if (this is a big if based on how the nation is treating him, for some reason) Bush were to be impeached that would mean the half dead cyborg gets the job, and he, would keep Bush out of power (at least directly) until the next election where he would be quickly picked off for health concerns and his mating with the oil companies. But nothing really BIG has happened besides Bush showing on a daily basis that he is an idiot, so the public can just vote him out. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/8 "2004-05-20T16:19:13Z")
> [@Mehitabel](#): > > Look, Ma, Dick Cheney fans! > > \ No . . . but it does mean **John Kerry** becomes prez! If Bush were removed from office right now, Cheney would serve as president until January 2005 (assuming he lives that long). The people will never, ever **elect** Cheney to be president. Does anyone care to contradict me on that fairly obvious point? Now, if Bush is impeached and removed, there’s nothing constitutionally to prevent the Republic Party from going ahead and nominating him as their (non-incumbent) candidate for president; it’s unprecedented, but not illegal. But under those circumstances, there’s no way he could win in November. It’s already shaping up to be a whisker-close election; getting impeached would do Bush political damage from which he could never hope to recover before election day. Knowing this, the Republican convention almost certainly would not nominate Bush or Cheney; they would have a flurry of last-minute brokering and pick some other no-hoper sacrificial lamb to go through the motions of representing the party in November. But none of this will happen – **because** there is an election coming up, both presidential and congressional. Why should the congresscritters go to the trouble of starting a lengthy impeachment process, which might not even be finished by November, when they have a much better chance of seeing Bush booted out by the voters in the normal course of things? And besides, all representatives and one-third of the senators have their own re-election campaigns to focus on just now. And, obviously, even if the election were further off, Bush still would not be impeached by this Congress because the Republicans control both houses. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/9 "2004-05-20T16:21:18Z")
I dislike Bush as much as anyone, and I think if you shaved his head you’d see three 6s on it. But impeachment is a truly drastic step that should be used only under the most dire circumstances. I believe both instances where it has been used in the past were unwarranted. If we’re going to impeach a president every time he does something we don’t like, then let’s just have a prime minister and parliament. If the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors are sufficiently great, then the people in their wisdom will rectify the situation in November. Besides, the mere fact that Cheney would get to the White House if this happens should be enough to scare the bejeezus out of anyone contemplating impeaching Bush. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/10 "2004-05-20T17:01:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No . . . but it does mean **John Kerry** becomes prez! If Bush were removed from office right now, Cheney would serve as president until January 2005 (assuming he lives that long). The people will never, ever **elect** Cheney to be president. Does anyone care to contradict me on that fairly obvious point? No, but I will contradict you on the assertion that Bush would drop out of the race. At this point, an impeached Bush would stand a better chance with the electorate than any other Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/11 "2004-05-20T18:18:49Z")
The only way I can imagine Bush being impeached is if: 1. He wins the election; 2. Republicans lose both house and senate; and 3. The scandals around Bush continue to come to light. In this circumstance, I can imagine him being impeached in the next cycle. If the impeachment somehow went through, Cheney would almost certainly go with him, either concurrently or immediately afterward; it’s hard to imagine that Cheney would be more ignorant of Administration sins than Bush is. If Bush resigned, a la Nixon, prior to impeachment, then Cheney could hold onto office possibly. If Bush made it past impeachment a la Clinton, then he’d likely be a lame duck a la Clinton. I hope we never find out on any of these scenarios, of course. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/12 "2004-05-20T19:22:17Z")
Small point, Clinton, as a second term president was not a “Lame Duck” as he was legally incapable of running for a third concurrent term. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/13 "2004-05-20T19:34:38Z")
I’m with **RTFirefly** on this one; I think you can make a stronger impeachment case for misleading Congress and the American people into starting an unprovoked war than you can over some tenuous knowledge of prisoner abuse and violations of the Geneva convention. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/14 "2004-05-20T19:46:52Z")
> [@Ryan Mahoney](#): > > Small point, Clinton, as a second term president was not a “Lame Duck” as he was legally incapable of running for a third concurrent term. [Back atcha](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lame%20duck) :). > [@American Heritage Dictionary](#): > > lame duck > n. > > 1 a. An elected officeholder or group continuing in office during the period between failure to win an election and the inauguration of a successor. > \*\*b. An officeholder who has chosen not to run for reelection or is ineligible for reelection. \*\* [emphasis added] It all depends on what your definition of “lame duck” is, to paraphrase the man of the hour. I was using definition 1b. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/15 "2004-05-21T02:24:38Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I dislike Bush as much as anyone, and I think if you shaved his head you’d see three 6s on it. But impeachment is a truly drastic step that should be used only under the most dire circumstances. I believe both instances where it has been used in the past were unwarranted. Under what circumstances **would** impeachment be warranted, in your opinion? > [@Munch](#): > > No, but I will contradict you on the assertion that Bush would drop out of the race. At this point, an impeached Bush would stand a better chance with the electorate than any other Republican. ??? Bush is thrown out of office in connection with a scandal more corrupt than Watergate, more embarassing than Monicagate, and more damaging to our national interests than any presidential blunder in living memory, and that makes his electoral position **stronger?** Why? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/16 "2004-05-21T03:03:38Z")
I think you need ironclad proof that a president committed a serious crime. Lying about sexual escapades isn’t serious, I don’t care who he lied to. IF Bush can be shown to have intentionally and flagrantly committed a felony then it’s cut and dried. Simple mistakes and use of poor judgement doesn’t cross the threshold in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/17 "2004-05-21T04:11:06Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I think you need ironclad proof that a president committed a serious crime. Lying about sexual escapades isn’t serious, I don’t care who he lied to. IF Bush can be shown to have intentionally and flagrantly committed a felony then it’s cut and dried. Simple mistakes and use of poor judgement doesn’t cross the threshold in my opinion. I dunno, I think it’s a mistake to tie the grounds for impeachment to any particular class of crimes. I wouldn’t support impeaching a President for felony drug dealing or felony copyright infringement, for example. Those don’t really say much about his ability to continue running the country. OTOH, I _would_ support impeaching a President for misleading the public and legislature over war, even if it weren’t technically a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/18 "2004-05-21T12:56:34Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > [Back atcha](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lame%20duck) :). > > [emphasis added] > > It all depends on what your definition of “lame duck” is, to paraphrase the man of the hour. I was using definition 1b. > > Daniel Whoops. Well, there I go learning something new every day. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/19 "2004-05-21T15:50:29Z")
> [@Ryan Mahoney](#): > > Small point, Clinton, as a second term president was not a “Lame Duck” as he was legally incapable of running for a third concurrent term. You’re generally a lame duck as soon as you’re elected for the last legal time. He had been one since his1992 re-election. His impeachment, if you’ll recall, was performed by a literal lame-duck House, though - the elections had already been held, and several of the members who voted against him had already been fired by their constituents for saying that’s what they’d do. That also explains DeLay’s rush to get the bill passed before the new House, representing the people’s will, took office - there was a huge risk the party-line votes might not have been there, no matter the coercion applied. Re Cheney, clearly they’d both have to be impeached, and Rumsfeld too because he is just as deserving. No VP or Cabinet officer has ever had that happen, but the process is available. Only problem is that it would make Hastert, DeLay’s sock puppet, the Prez - plus the election would be over by then anyway, and meanwhile the accusations of partisanship would drown out the real campaign. The process is strictly a political one, with no legal implications despite its superficial trappings and despite the GOP attempt to portray Clinton’s impeachment as somehow a special trial for defendants who happen to be elected, and therefore not simply about something so silly as it was. But that means that adequate grounds for impeachment are whatever the House thinks they are. If lying us into a war isn’t good enough reason, though, what the hell is? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2004, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076/20 "2004-05-21T16:02:24Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I dislike Bush as much as anyone, and I think if you shaved his head you’d see three 6s on it. But impeachment is a truly drastic step that should be used only under the most dire circumstances. I believe both instances where it has been used in the past were unwarranted. If we’re going to impeach a president every time he does something we don’t like, then let’s just have a prime minister and parliament. If the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors are sufficiently great, then the people in their wisdom will rectify the situation in November. Besides, the mere fact that Cheney would get to the White House if this happens should be enough to scare the bejeezus out of anyone contemplating impeaching Bush. This is such a losing philosophy that so many Dems embrace. They keep limiting themselves to what they will and will not do to achieve their political will, whereas it’s obvioius that the Republican leadership has discarded most caveats along those lines – they will do virtually anything to win, while Dems keep insisting on bringing knives to gunfights. Then the Dems are so amazed that they lose. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/deliberate-violation-of-the-geneva-conventions-on-prisoners-grounds-for-impeachment/246076.md?page=2)