Y’know, your shtick where you expect everybody to play by lawyer standards is getting a bit tiresome.
I realize that at some subconscious level, you must be aware of this, but:
The SDMB isn’t a court of law.
When it’s reconstituted as one, or when the debate is specifically about what’s legal and what’s not, your expertise will be invaluable, but in this thread you’ve repeatedly applied your lawyer standards well beyond the point where they’re relevant or appropriate.
We’re talking about whether people’s desire to see Bush’s sorry ass hauled into The Hague on war-crimes charges somehow indicates their willingness to override due process in Bush’s case. The stuff you’ve just asked for is way beyond the scope of what’s necessary for this discussion. So kindly put down your Juris Doctor degree for awhile.
You know full well that the Geneva Conventions ban torture, and that they include as ‘torture’ techniques that we’ve used. That’s certainly good enough for purposes of this debate, which is what we’re in. Not a goddamned court of law.
I’m too tired to dig out a thread where we’ve gone over this ground, but we’ve gone over this harrowed ground. We’ve had threads where we went digging through the jots and tittles of the Geneva Conventions. We’ve done this. So fuck that shit.
I have to defend Bricker here. We may differ on the rightness of the war (or may not; I’m not sure of his position), but everything I’ve read in this thread indicates that his opposition to the scenarios I listed in the OP are simply extremely technical versions of my own feelings that US sovereignty and the rule of law are more important than seeing Bush get his comeuppance.
The problem is, Bush’s Administration and his avoiding any punishment ( or even much investigation ) are a huge slap in the face to the rule of law and the concept of national sovereignty . They demonstrate that there are no such things, just Might Makes Right and the whims of the powerful.
IOW you gots nuffin but your standard anti-American and divorced from reality rantage. Well, that’s a big surprise.
shrug It’s a legal question…on what basis SHOULD we discuss it? Especially when we have a member who actually has some knowledge of how the legal field actually operates in the real world. There are other lawyers on the SD as well but unfortunately they haven’t wandered into the thread…probably because this is about the millionth ‘What if Bush were convicted of WAR CRIMES™!! and then buried in an ant hill with honey poured all over him in the hot sun…??’.
And IIRC nothing was ever resolved in ANY of those thread, because it breaks down to guess work since there is no body or precedence and no enforcement of the rules in any kind of systematic way.
Out of curiosity, since this is a legal discussion, why are you upset when Bricker brings his obvious expertise into the discussion? On what basis SHOULD we have such a discussion…unless all you are really after is another ‘Bush is a war criminal!’ thread with no debate.
Getting back to the OP, and from a strictly non-legal perspective I think most American’s would be quite upset if any of those scenarios occurred. Oh, I don’t think they would shed many tears if he was actually put on trial in the US for crimes…nor even if he was extradited through a legal process to face justice in Europe (not that this is likely to ever happen)…but snatched by mercenaries? Taken by force while visiting another country? While that kind of silly fantasy obviously appeals to many members of the SD, I doubt the general public would take to kindly to it, regardless of how they feel about Bush.
Further, I seriously doubt whether people in other countries would look to kindly if it happened to THEIR president/prime minister/head of state (aside from our fellow 'dopers who are from other countries). I seriously doubt, for instance, if the Brits would be thrilled if Tony Blair were bundled off to trial while visiting Spain, regardless of how the majority of citizens of the UK feel about him. Put on trial? Yeah, they might go for that…but captured by mercenaries and delivered bundled up for some kind of kangaroo court?
Do you have any evidence of any charges filed vs GWB in the ICC for anything? If not, then none are. Besides Iraq, what would they charge him for? Draft Dodging? Snorting coke while in college? Fixing the vote in Fla? I mean, come on.
Oh, I see, you’re just trying some excercise in logic? That just because they specifically mentioned Iraq that doesn’t mean they haven’t filed a boatload of other charges? :rolleyes: Suuuure. :rolleyes:
Let me use your analogy
Excercise in logic=/= real world.
But if you do have any evidence at all that the ICC has any charges filed vs GWB for anything (i the real world)- even a fucking parking ticket- please trot them out and prove me wrong.
But you don’t, and so you cling to some insignificant logical debating point as if it means anything.
Yes, well I have a desire for Pam Anderson to blow me, while standing knee deep in a pile of hundred dollar bills, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn to grant me immortality.
But that’s fantasy, not reality. And if we are talking reality, we have to talk some law and some real charges they migh bring against GWB. Got any? Nope. Sure, you can fantasize GWB will get his just deserts and if that’s all this is, maybe the PIT or
MPSIMS if you keep it PG13. Otherwise we are in GD, where Bricker’s knowledge of the law is a very strong argument. This ain’t Fantasy Island, dude.
I don’t think our ideals ever were consistent with turning over our own presidents for war crimes. Lord knows we’ve had many opportunities to do so, if we were so inclined.
You see Vietnam, Grenada, Panama and Bosnia as defensive struggles then? Similar cases could be made wrt to all of them using the same meter stick as the Iraqi invasion.
Our “ideals” date to long before the UN. And we’ve never been particularly in line with the UN-- Americans tend to be very wary of such international institutions.
We tried many Germans for war crimes, but it could easily have been the other way around. Korea, Vietnam offered plenty of opportunities in big-time wars. On a smaller scale, what we did to Serbia was a clear act of aggression against a country that was no threat whatsoever to the US.
We’re not debating sovereignty, just his claim that the desires of people like me to see Bush on trial somehow stand in opposition to a belief in due process of law.
So this’ll be a response to you, and to DrDeth, and xtisme, and Bricker can address it too when he returns to the thread.
Excepting people who want to see him in prison whether or not he’s actually violated international or American law, which is a lot further than I (and all but a very few Dopers, I suspect) would go, I think the whole argument is bullshit. Believing someone’s committed crimes against humanity, and wanting him to pay for those assumed crimes, doesn’t mean that if they can’t quote chapter and verse of a specific statute, they simply want to throw him in prison, whether he’s guilty of a specific crime or not.
Despite believing this, I’ve been more than willing to consider Bricker’s argument, but my point still holds across levels. If someone breaks into my house, I know that is illegal, and my inability to quote chapter and verse of the statute book doesn’t mean my desire to see it thrown at the miscreants implies a desire to deprive them of the protections of due process of law. I would want (grudgingly, perhaps) them to be charged by a grand jury of the violations of specific statutes, I’d want them to have lawyers and discovery and calling witnesses and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and all that, in a trial before a jury of their peers. The fact that I’d desire a particular outcome with all my heart doesn’t conflict with that.
I know that torture is illegal under the Geneva conventions. I have every reason to believe that techniques authorized by the Principals are regarded as torture. I want to see Bush be tried, convicted, and imprisoned on that account.
But as my breaking-and-entering example illustrates, there’s a “???” step between this and the conclusion that I want Bush railroaded - that I want him tried even if there’s nothing in the Geneva Conventions that he can be charged with violating, that I want him convicted and imprisoned in the absence of evidence.
Knowledge of the law is irrelevant here because it’s not a question of law; it’s a question of motivation. Wanting a particular outcome may or may not mean wanting the removal of certain legal hurdles between where we are and that outcome. It may simply mean that I believe the hurdles can all be cleared, whether or not I can see their nature precisely.
All the legal knowledge in the world, let alone the portion of it that Bricker has, sheds no light on which category a person is in. And that is the fundamental flaw in Bricker’s argument.
No, we don’t, because we aren’t arguing whether there exist such laws, though I certainly believe there are. We’re arguing whether my desire to see Bush imprisoned constitutes a willingness to override due process of law.
Does your desire for Pam Anderson to blow you implicitly constitute a desire to force yourself on Pam Anderson, whether or not she wants to blow you? No, it doesn’t. I would assume you are simply fantasizing that she would be blowing you because she really wants to please you that way.
Well, two things here jump out at me. First off your use of the word ‘believing’ I think is significant. You BELIEVE that Bush is guilty of crimes against humanity…but it’s simply your belief without a solid basis in either US or the murkier international law.
Secondly, the issue isn’t whether you (or I or even Bricker) can or can’t site chapter and verse. WE don’t decide these things. Bricker is not the sole authority on this matter. There are plenty of lawyers who ARE well versed not only in US law but in international law as well…and also who know exactly what the GC really means and how it applies to this situation.
Now, perhaps one day a nation or group of nations (or maybe some body within the US itself) WILL charge GW with actual crimes in a formal setting…but to date there have been no serious efforts either on the international front or here at home (I realize there may be disagreement here wrt Kucinich…myself, I think he’s a lone moonbat but freely acknowledge MMV).
What does that mean exactly though? Is it illegal on an individual basis or more broadly speaking? How many nations have been held to account under the GC for torture? How many individuals? While I agree that torture is bad and while I think it SHOULD be illegal I’m unsure what this term means in terms of enforcement and punishment. I think that there have been plenty of instances of ‘torture’ being used by MANY countries (and even more individuals) since the GC was first formulated and through it’s various incarnations.
As far as US law goes, I’m unsure if you could actually pin this on Bush unless you have evidence that he in fact directly authorized it…which I seriously doubt he did (directly). Yeah, it’s a legal weasel…but much of our legal system is built around such checks and weaseling (no offense to Bricker), and for good reasons. I think it’s a slippery slope to try and throtle those checks back to make exceptions for GW because, from my non-lawyer perspective it seems that much of our legal system is based on precedence…and going after GW without firm evidence sets a bad precedence that will probably come back to bite future presidents on the ass.
Actually yes you should debunk ALL of them. I have laid out my reasoning and evidence. You think I am jumping around but that is because the allegations against Bush are numerous. You debunked prosecuting him for starting a war. Fine. One down, 30+ more to go.
I’ll even make it easier for you. Read this link (PDF) which specifies each of the Articles of Impeachment Kucinich read in to the record and the laws they are purported to violate.
Further, this is not “Hey, if we look long and hard enough, I’m sure we’ll find SOMETHING we can get him for!”. One of my links was the ACLU. They have collected numerous documents (collected under the Freedom of Information Act) that they feel establishes a case against Bush. You know…evidence. Are you prepared to call all ACLU attorneys neophytes who have no clue about the law? Want to suggest they are on a witch hunt and all their evidence is crap? Then make YOUR case. As you noted to me it is not my job to do this for you.
You wanted evidence. I have given it to you in spades and then some. If you want to cherry pick ala Shodan fine but it does not improve your argument in the slightest. Picking one weak link out of a pile does not get rid of the pile.
I am all for Bricker and other legal eagles to point out what is and is not permissible in the the judicial system. We can rant we think it is crazy but the system is that way for a reason and we have to work within it. Fine.
But I HAVE pointed out LEGAL cases being presented. How does the ACLU strike you as an organization that has a clue about how law works and what can be done? Even if you want to paint them as fundie libruls it does not change the fact they are a pile of fundie librul lawyers. Here is a letter to Congress the ACLU sent making ten definitive legal points to start and investigation into these allegations. Complete with reasoning, legal precedent, the law itself and cites.
How can you and others here keep pushing the notion that we are all Bush haters pissing into the wind and have got nothing? Making the case may not be easy but we are saying a case can be made. Certainly, at the very least, to initiate a formal investigation. Can we get Bush out of the gate? Maybe not but I bet as an investigation proceeds and you start rolling up the little guys the house of cards Bush & Co. constructed will come tumbling down. This seems SOP on getting mafia bosses so why shouldn’t a similar approach be used here?
I appreciate the expertise Bricker brings to these and in keeping the debate from being nothing more than pat ourselves on the back strokefests on how bad Bush is.
I also think Bricker uses his greater knowledge to steamroll people even if he knows they might have something worth arguing. In the end he quashes debate in pursuit of winning his point. In a court room fine. Here? I think it is bogus unless we want to concede Bricker entering a thread amounts to a fait accompli, thread over.
No, what’s not a surprise is that you yet again completely fail to address what I say and instead just wave it aside as ridiculous without bothering to say why. And you again call me “Anti American” as if that’s an argument for me being wrong.
I think this will be my final post in here (listens for the cheers of the crowd) as things just seem to be going around and around as usual with this subject.
December 13th, 2007 is the date stamp on that document. Without going into whether or not the ACLU is an unbiased source (or whether or not they would constitute ‘fundie libruls’…your term, not mine), don’t you think there has been sufficient time for something to be happening with this if it is valid? Or maybe it takes a couple of years…I really don’t know. I will await in hopeful repose for the coming of the trial…while not holding my breath.
Because I’ve been hearing variants on this theme for, oh, 6 years at least (and hearing ranting about Bush from even BEFORE he was sworn in). I’ve seen enough smoke to choke a herd of horses (dead or in midstream), but I’ve yet to see any real fire. At this point nothing short of Bush GOING to trial will convince me of the reality because I’ve heard the wolf cry too many times. While I have no doubt Bush IS a slime ball of epic proportions, and while I THINK he has committed crimes of various types I also seriously doubt that he has done so in such a way that could be determined in a court of law…unless the judge and jury were made up of pissed off SD members (and probably people from, say, the ACLU).
I’m at the ‘put up or shut up’ point (not with you but with this subject in general). If there IS a case then I want to SEE the case. If he CAN be put on trial then PUT HIM ON TRIAL. Otherwise I think this is just a lot of mental masturbation and circle jerking. If Congress has the goods on Bush but won’t move on it then I blame Congress for being the spineless weaselets they are. If the International Community™ has a case against Bush but won’t bring it up then afaiac there IS no basis…nor should any further weight be given to those treaties because obviously they are meaningless.
Show me the money.
Fine by me…if there is sufficient evidence to investigate him then INVESTIGATE HIM ALREADY! Let’s see it…serve it up…show me the money…etc etc.
Conversely for literally years we’ve been hearing this same ole song and dance about how Bush is guilty of CRIMES! And yet…he is still there. Chaney, the master of evil is STILL THERE. How did Kucinich’s impeachment of Chaney work out? How is the impeachment of Bush working out? How is that ACLU case working out? How about the guy who wrote the book (title escapes me atm and I’m too tired to look it up) supposedly proving Bush is guilty…GUILTY…GUILTY!!! That getting any real traction in legal circles? How about with the ICC? Any traction on the international front for formal accusations of Bush on…well, on anything?
At some point you have to concede that either Bush/America (and every member of the PMUNSC…and various other nations as well) are simply to powerful to be prosecuted for war crimes…in which case the question is moot in practical terms because nothing will ever be done. Or that there simply isn’t any real evidence that could be used in a court of law to put Bush on trial, which, while saying nothing about his guilt or innocence again renders the question moot because in practical terms nothing will ever be done about it. Or that there IS sufficient evidence but that no one has the cojones to come forward in a formal setting, in which case…same drill. Or that there is sufficient evidence AND someone, someday, with the cojones to do the right thing…in which case I’ll wait and see. While not holding my breath.
Sure…I’ve noticed that many people on this board have expertise in very vertical subjects and that they tend to lose patience easily with laymen on their pet subjects. Jshore, while I respect his knowledge on environmental change does this occasionally…as does Intention on the same subject. There are a lot of examples (myself included in some of the networking threads in GQ, though I TRY not to do that…which is why I don’t usually participate in most of those type threads).
However, I don’t think Bricker is trying to simply declare victory by fiat in this thread, simply to point out the flaws in the counter arguments from a LEGAL perspective…which I think bring some grounding in reality to the debate which the rest of us laymen lack.
In any case, as with the Kucinich impeachment thread I think I’ll bow out as I’ve said all I wanted to say on this subject. I’ll continue to take a skeptical but hope springing eternal wait and see stance. Maybe in a year or two we’ll see something happen on this subject in a more formal and reality based setting as, assuming there really is hard evidence President Obama and an increased Democratic Congress find that they DO have balls and actually do something instead of endlessly talking about it…
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole Are you prepared to call all ACLU attorneys neophytes who have no clue about the law? Want to suggest they are on a witch hunt and all their evidence is crap? Then make YOUR case. As you noted to me it is not my job to do this for you.
You wanted evidence. I have given it to you in spades and then some. If you want to cherry pick ala Shodan fine but it does not improve your argument in the slightest. Picking one weak link out of a pile does not get rid of the pile.[/QUOTE]
But the ACLU attorneys are the ones that put together that first link that I debunked. They were making a case for impeachment – which can be based on anything Congress wishes it to be. They aren’t constrained by making a legal case. In any event, the fact that their first point was bogus suggests that they are NOT approaching the issue fairly.
OK, let’s do some of Kucinich’s claims. The first “law” on his list that he claims the President violated is: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States…” In other words, Kucinich’s first claim of legal violation is his oath of office. As I hope is clear to everyone, that’s not a criminal matter. A President could shoot someone with a fully automatic weapon while sodomizing a corpse and snorting cocaine, and he would violate his oath of office… but he can’t be CHARGED, criminally, with violating his oath of office. That claim is public grandstanding, although (again) Congress could impeach him for violating his oath of office, just as they could impeach him for eating rhubarb pies. But “violating his oath of office” is not a criminal matter.
I had to type a whole paragraph to get rid of one idiotic point.
Second Kucinich claim: the Constitutional command that the President take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Same objection: no criminal case for violation of the mandate.
On it goes. Kucinich mentions criminal laws, but doesn’t allege specific acts that are clearly violative of the laws. He is making a case for impeachment, not drafting a criminal complaint.
And I would point out that Kucinich’s articles of impeachment were introduced on the House floor and promptly shelved into a planned dead-end BY THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP. The Republicans voted to hear the articles on the House floor. What conclusions do you reach from that?
In response, you post things like, “Here’s a link with 67 complaints from WeAllHateBush.org. Surely ONE of them is valid!!”
There’s no dramatically specialized knowledge needed here. Tell me what, exactly, Bush did, and what law, exactly, he violated. That’s what’s needed in our country to bring someone to trial.