[QUOTE=Shodan]
All three scenarios are acts of war, so any country attempting this, or holding Mr. Bush as hostage, can expect some difficulties.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
I have no comment on your post, Shodan. Just wanted to thank you for writing “Mr. Bush.” I was feeling lonely. 
[QUOTE=xtisme]
[Points on options 1-3 in the OP]
[/QUOTE]
What about the 4th option I posted in Post #9?
That would be a perfectly legal method of sending Bush to the ICC.
As for Bush being arrested in another country I am not sure what the US would really do. We often pound our chests about sovereignty and if we had an arrest warrant for some ex-politician and he comes to our country we’d be obligated to arrest him and tell the rest of the world to piss off.
IIRC Kissinger needs to carefully check his itinerary when traveling abroad to be sure he avoids ending up somewhere that has an arrest warrant for him. If another country applied its laws, especially a western democracy, and issues a warrant for Bush and Bush is then dumb enough to go there I am not sure the US would have much to say about it and certainly not start a war over it.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
…That Iraq remained an independent nation-state largely by the sufferance of the world community…
[/quote]
Minor hijack/divergence. I’m of two minds on this. It is probably the case that the alliance followed Bush First’s lead on this, that deposing Saddam was riskier than leaving him be. Plus, it seems that the alliance was averse to the potential bloodshed. Still, it leaves the tantalizing prospect of removing the evil slime and doing so under a legitimate international mandate. And avoiding the current clusterfuck.
I am shocked, sir, shocked! Don’t you realize you could end up with a surly young chablis?
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
What about the 4th option I posted in Post #9?
[/QUOTE]
I hadn’t read the comments in the thread yet…generally I respond to the OP first then read through the comments, unless when I hit preview I see something I want to comment on.
To be sure…and how often have they exercised this option wrt leaders in other countries?
Well, I think this would be the second non-starter…the first one would be that the ICC will probably never bring formal charges against GW that this entire thread pre-supposes. But ok, assuming they did so, you are quite correct…the would have to vote on it along with the other permanent members.
Well, I suppose he might be able to do this in theory (I actually have no idea to be honest but I guess it’s possible). He could also slit his own throat on national TV, of smoke crack in the White House while raping a billy goat. He is unlikely in the extreme to do so however as regardless of his feelings toward Bush it would set off a political firestorm if he did so…and might lead to his own impeachment. Certainly it would mean that the Republicans would do everything in their power to obstruct or otherwise thwart anything he tried to do during his term in office (I think it unlikely he’d get re-elected, assuming he did this in his first term)…and if he fucked up in even the slightest way they would be ready and eager to pounce on his ass.
This doesn’t even mention what the likely effect this would have on the population at large who, while no big fans of Bush would probably not be to happy to have him turned over to the Euro’s for trial and sentencing.
Sure, if the US voted for it ( :dubious: !!!) the rest of the permanent members probably would to (besides, the UK snatched him in the first place in the OP so I’m guessing they would go along).
Exactly.
Sure. My own dream (which I think actually has a higher probability than all this stuff) is for GW to be abducted by aliens who will anally probe him with the instruments they usually use for elephants (‘whoops! wrong probe!’) and then turn him over to a tribe of pygmies who would gang rape him for the rest of his life with rabid ferrets.
Seems more likely than all this war crimes stuff being more than just a wet dream of the faithful…besides, it’s really a lot more colorful…
-XT
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
I don’t think you are. I believe I wrote above that this is entirely hypothetical, and that my true interest is how my fellow American liberals would react to the violation of our sovereignty. I don’t mean to dismiss those on the other side of the aisle; it’s just that their reaction is fairly predictable.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see where the violation of sovereignty takes place, unless you add some further qualifications to #3. Such as the mercs being in the employ of a sovereign nation other than the U.S.
But if Dr. Evil were to offer ONE MILLION DOLLARS to anyone who deposits GWB’s sorry ass at the doorstep of the ICC in The Hague, and a team of mercs earned the reward, the mercs would have violated American law, but not American sovereignty: that’s not something individuals can do on their own.
Anyhow, my reaction to all three, with a nod to Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, would be dancing in the street. Preferably while drinking from a bottle of really good champagne.
Scenarios one and two: I grit my teeth and steel myself for the lengthy political ordeal ahead, and hope desperately that the union survives; but I allow myself a molecule of cautious optimism that justice will be done and Mr. Bush and his cronies wind up in front of a firing squad.
Scenario three: I write a very sternly worded letter to the editor, then I go play XBOX.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
What about the 4th option I posted in Post #9?
That would be a perfectly legal method of sending Bush to the ICC.
[/QUOTE]
But what’s the point of the US government handing over Bush to the ICC? Why exactly are we delegating the job to the ICC when we could prosecute him ourselves?
Face facts. If Bush is prosecuted in the US for his actions, then an ICC trial is moot. If Bush cannot be prosected in the US, then there’s no way we’d hand him over to the ICC.
And notions that an allied country, or an unfriendly country, or a commando team could hand Bush over to the ICC requires that there first has to be charges filed by the ICC. So if Britain or Venezuala wants to try Bush for crimes against humanity, they’re not going to be able to hide behind the fig leaf that they’re just handing him over to the ICC, they’re going to have to try him themselves, like big boys.
There is no international system of governence beyond what independent states agree to. The ICC has no authority except what the various members agree to give it. The ICC is a method for trying egregious third world dictators, not the heads of government of powerful countries. Is Putin going to face trial in the ICC? Are all the other dictators and thugs and murderers around the world going to face trial in the ICC?
If the US can’t get off its ass to prosecute Bush for whatever his stipulated crimes might be, then imagining that the ICC might do it for us is simply masturbatory.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
But what’s the point of the US government handing over Bush to the ICC? Why exactly are we delegating the job to the ICC when we could prosecute him ourselves?
Face facts. If Bush is prosecuted in the US for his actions, then an ICC trial is moot. If Bush cannot be prosected in the US, then there’s no way we’d hand him over to the ICC.
<snip>
If the US can’t get off its ass to prosecute Bush for whatever his stipulated crimes might be, then imagining that the ICC might do it for us is simply masturbatory.
[/QUOTE]
Well…I’ve tried this in other threads.
Seems due to the vagaries of the law and the Constitution the best that could be done in the US is impeach him and remove him from office. After that he is free to go open libraries and earn a lot in public speaking fess. There seems to be no way to prosecute him under US law (despite there being laws that could apply the President’s constitutional Article II powers shield him from answering to any of this). That and then actually somehow proving GWB is responsible as opposed to hiding behind others skirts saying, “Well, that’s what the CIA/NSA/Rice/Rove/Cheney/FBI/Great Britain/Germany, etc. told me! I was just doing my job!”
It seems positively unthinkable that Bush & Co. can get away with what they have done. It is not even reading between the lines on this so much of it is overt. But the law sees us in arguments over the precise definition of what “lie” means, nevermind his deceptions would not get your 10 year old off the hook for stealing a cookie before dinner.
So, we are left with the ICC.
Then give it up because the ICC will do nothing. They are LESS useful in this than our own laws and the Congress is. Hell, IMHO they are less useful in doing so for nations that aren’t superpowers…let alone a nation like the US.
Sure, you can dream…but remember it IS a dream and is completely unlikely to happen in this world.
-XT
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
[…] While it has drawn the usual Bush is the suxxors comments, […]
[/QUOTE]
You misspelled “teh”. 
What is Euro’s?
Case 1: Be mightily surprised, but at least count on that he will be afforded due process and most likely eventually returned on a procedural grounds after giving him a good scare and sending a signal to his cohorts. Privately knock back a couple, do a little end-zone dance and laugh at the TV screen during the footage of his arraignment. Peruse the letters and speeches from the then-sitting administration to watch them contort themselves trying to communicate the general thought of "OK, guys, please, we can understand how you feel, sure, but put yourselves in our place; remember those ‘68 million people who could be so stupid’ ? They’re screaming in the streets and Bill O’Reilly is threatening to do his show naked unless we make stern statements demanding his release and claiming your charges are bogus. Be reasonable, do you want his fans back in charge?" Get a huge laugh out of the con bloggers/editorialists, and listen to Nancy Grace decreeing that there is no law and no justice in any other country in the planet.
Case 2: Be mightily surprised he’s THAT foolish and at the same time pretty damn annoyed at the situation, since I do not believe in kangarooing or railroading even the guilty, and there goes ANY credibility of bringing the man to any account ever. Hope somebody quickly bribes someone in the country of reference to “let” him slip into a friendly embassy before we’re forced to do something that hurts their people, or else that when he’s turned over to Hague THEY say “well, too bad, you screwed up the apprehension, violated the proper norms, Mr. Bush walks”.
Case 3: Nope, cannot enjoy this. Same deal with the railroading, plus a world where mercenary teams are sent to smite former heads of state at will in their own back yards is contrary to EVERY sovereign state’s interests. That you did it doesn’t make it right for me to do it. Hell, think about it, even WE haven’t done it that way for decades now: when we wanted to get Noriega and Saddam we did it overtly under the government’s flag and authority. Elsewhere, the Serbian nationalist leaders are being turned over by Serbia’s own later government, not by the SAS. What, you say your country does not have the kind of military/intelligence assets it takes to succesfully conduct such a raid and avoid getting flattened in retaliation? You say the USA won’t feel politically forced to hand him over willingly ourselves? Well, that’s a whole 'nother story, power imbalance is just the way the world is…
BTW the scenarios as portrayed in the OP involve referral to Hague/ICC; no mention is made of the scenario where a (normally friendly, ruled-by-law, Western, democratic) country may **assume its own jurisdiction ** over a case of actions ordered by G W Bush against one of **their ** own citizens, that they consider criminal. Many Western nations have laws on the books that allow for such actions, with no need for Hague Court referral. (Say a Spanish citizen dies in custody during “strenuous interrogation” – as I understand it, per the laws on the books, Spain CAN charge and attempt to prosecute those responsible under its own justice system.)
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
So, we are left with the ICC.
[/QUOTE]
You keep saying in the other thread that Bush is immune to prosecution, but this isn’t true. He absolutely can be tried for violating the law. The trouble is he has to be charged with violating a particular law, and we also have to, you know, prove it. And things like the invasion of Iraq certainly didn’t violate any US law, neither does lying to congress, neither does lying to the UN. Things like ordering the torture of prisoners would violate US law, except the trouble is that you have to prove he ordered such torture. And this wouldn’t be very easy, because such things aren’t going to be written down. He’s going to verbally tell the CIA chief something like “Do whatever it takes to get this information.” It’s not going to be easy to prove a connection between the CIA agent or US soldier who’s in that prison cell torturing a prisoner back up to the president. This is why it took years of work for the FBI to prosecute mafia bosses. Everyone knew who the mafia bosses were, everyone knew they were involved in crimes all day every day, the problem was proving it in court.
And the ICC can’t just throw people in jail because they’re lying scumbags who started a war, because like the US courts the ICC also has to, you know, prove it. How is the ICC going to prosecute Bush without documentation provided from the US? Even it wanted to? Which brings us back to the conundrum that the ICC can’t prosecute Bush without US cooperation, yet if the US is cooperating in Bush’s prosecution Bush wouldn’t be in the ICC he’d be on trial in the US first.
You all might find the wikipedia entry helpful: International Criminal Court - Wikipedia
[QUOTE=Mighty_Girl]
What is Euro’s?
[/QUOTE]
The reference here is that the ICC/Hague World Court/whatever the appropriate venue (it’s not all just one single body) are already perceived by a large segment of the US population as being a body completely composed of strongly americophobic European Law Professors.
ETA: And as the man says, Bush WOULD be chargeable and prosecutable IF you can meet the standard of proof for criminal cases.
Actually it’s just short hand for Europeans. The rest of that stuff was on your own dime.
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Actually it’s just short hand for Europeans. The rest of that stuff was on your own dime.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but you and I both know that THAT would be the lead scream from all the pro-Bush pundits…
No doubt about that, though I doubt many on this particular board feel that way, ‘pro-Bush’ or not. In any case, just clarifying my own viewpoint there…‘Euro’s’ just means Europeans.
-XT
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
You keep saying in the other thread that Bush is immune to prosecution, but this isn’t true. He absolutely can be tried for violating the law. The trouble is he has to be charged with violating a particular law, and we also have to, you know, prove it. And things like the invasion of Iraq certainly didn’t violate any US law, neither does lying to congress, neither does lying to the UN. Things like ordering the torture of prisoners would violate US law, except the trouble is that you have to prove he ordered such torture. And this wouldn’t be very easy, because such things aren’t going to be written down. He’s going to verbally tell the CIA chief something like “Do whatever it takes to get this information.” It’s not going to be easy to prove a connection between the CIA agent or US soldier who’s in that prison cell torturing a prisoner back up to the president. This is why it took years of work for the FBI to prosecute mafia bosses. Everyone knew who the mafia bosses were, everyone knew they were involved in crimes all day every day, the problem was proving it in court.
[/QUOTE]
And where are the investigations of this? The FBI spends a lot of time gathering proof to convict mafia bosses. Where is the investigation of Bush to even see if enough evidence can be gathered? There has been one half-assed congressional investigation which in the end decided Bush did indeed lie and deceive the American public. SCOTUS ruled the government violated the Geneva Convention. On the basis of that (not to mention a wealth of other evidence) I think that at least merits a serious criminal investigation.
But you all have put the cart before the horse. You cannot prove anything so don’t bother trying to prove anything. Even if you cold prove something you cannot convict him anyway so don’t bother having a trial.
Wish things worked like that for me.
Well, it’s true that prosecutors typically choose cases they think they can win. Even if they’re pretty sure that person A committed crime B, if they think proving the crime to the jury will be impossible they don’t prosecute. There’s no use in prosecuting person A only to see them acquitted, and besides what if new evidence comes to light that would prove crime B? If person A was prosecuted for crime B with no evidence and acquitted, they are now immune from prosecution under double jeopardy.
So it makes a lot of sense to wait until you’re got a very strong case than to prosecute immediately.
As for why there are no ongoing investigation, well, that should be obvious. The Justice Department is part of the executive branch. It would be naive to imagine that an Attorney General would effectively investigate his boss. And lower level people get squelched.
And so it comes down to Congress. Either Congress appoints an independent prosecutor, or Congress investigates itself. But both of those require Congress to have the stones to investigate. If Congress doesn’t have the stomach, then you’re going to have to wait for the next Congress, or the next President. Either that or hope Bush has committed state crimes instead of federal crimes, since state crimes can be investigated and prosecuted by independent state officials.
And why doesn’t Congress have the stomach for a big investigation? Because they know it will be tough sledding. And without public outcry demanding something be done, what’s in it for the average congresscritter? What’s in it for the congressional leadership? Without public outcry there’s no incentive to overturn the rocks. Without overturning the rocks there isn’t much public outcry.
And yeah, if you’re the President you’re not above the law, but you sure have a lot more protection from the law than your average Joe. OJ Simpson got a different class of justice than your average guy who stabs his ex-wife to death, now take that several orders of magnitude higher for a president or ex-president.
It all comes down to the public. We get the government we demand. And the problem is that the public isn’t too upset about torturing prisoners. They SHOULD be upset, but they aren’t. The public isn’t too upset about the lies that lead to the war. They SHOULD be, but they aren’t. The public is more upset by the problem that the war is going poorly than that lies were told to convince the public to support the war.
And this is why it’s more important to spread the truth about what Bush has been up to than to build cases for criminal charges against Bush. Because it’s almost certainly not going to happen that Bush is going to face criminal charges in Federal, State or International court. Punishing Bush accomplishes what, exactly? Especially since it can’t happen anyway?
It seems to me that fantasising about Bush going to prison is just a way of fantasising about a way to shut up the people who supported Bush and the war. Bush going to prison would prove that you were right and they were wrong. Except even if that were to happen, it wouldn’t prove anything. And what if he beat the charges? The real way to convince people that you were right and they were wrong is to convince people that you were right and they were wrong. Except as you know, it’s not like you’re going to convince the hard core. You’re really going to convince the fence-sitters. And eventually the people who thought wrong will die, and only the right-thinking people will go on.
The real verdict is history. Twenty years from now, will people look back at the Bush years and think they weren’t so bad, or will Bush’s reputation continue to sink further into the crapper? Twenty years from now will the public be ready to vote for another Bush, or will the negative experience of one Bush innoculate them against another?
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Punishing Bush accomplishes what, exactly? Especially since it can’t happen anyway?
It seems to me that fantasising about Bush going to prison is just a way of fantasising about a way to shut up the people who supported Bush and the war. Bush going to prison would prove that you were right and they were wrong. Except even if that were to happen, it wouldn’t prove anything. And what if he beat the charges?
[/QUOTE]
Bush has set a new bar on what the Executive can expect to get away with. How the Executive can go about business. How little the Executive has to worry about overstepping their bounds.
A serious attempt at prosecuting Bush would tell future Presidents and (perhaps) his/her administration that yeah, they do have to work within the laws of the US or suffer the consequences.