How Can a Civilian Get George W. Bush Charged with War Crimes?

Factual Questions
21

::checks forum::

OK, facts only, here – right?

To prosecute a person for a crime in the United States, you must be able to point to a specific provision of the law that was in existence at the time of the act, and show probably cause to believe the target of the prosecution violated that law.

You cannot prosecute a person under “international law” or “war crimes.” There is no law in the United States against attacking the sovereignty of another country.

So to answer the OP: there is no way to do as you ask.

But let’s assume that by “war crimes” you generically mean “a crime under U.S. law associated to some degree with the war.”

As a general principle, there is no realistic way for a private citizen to initiate a criminal prosecution in the United States. Citizens must bring a prosecutor on board.

So the GQ answer now is: Step 1: convince a prosecutor that there is probable cause to believe a law in his bailiwick was violated, and that George Bush violated it.

22

Forgive me, for I’m not formally schooled in law, but here’s one:

You may say that Bush was legally authorized to invade Iraq. But if it can be proven that he obtained this authorization through fraud, wouldn’t that fraud vitiate the consent? And if the authorzation for use of force is a nullity, then he is just as liable as you or I for perpetuating a design that causes the death of another human being.

23

Your really grasping at straws here.

The President is the Commander and Chief per the US Constitution. He is empowered to initiate certain acts which could cause death. In addition, the war in Iraq was approved by Congress. No matter how you look at it or whether you agree with the war there is nothing illegal about it.

Even if you think Bush misled Congress, it’s Congress’s job to check the facts out, not to just do whatever the president says. You might as well indict every member of Congress that voted for the war. And indict Bill Clinton as well for any deaths that happened in Haiti/Bosnia.

24

Well according to your site, it would have to be done in an international court of another country. Then Bush would have to travel onto that country’s soil in order to get arrested.

The U.S.A doesn’t recognize any international courts, so no citizen could bring a “War crimes” charge from within the U.S. I suppose.

25

Well you’re going to have to charge unka-Bill for attacking Serbia.

26

:nods:

And there is no law in the USA that says we can only attack for defensive reasons.

27

No.

A law (such as the Authorization for Use of Military Force) passed by the legislature does not somehow vanish if you can show that the legislature was duped into passing it.

So, no, the idea that the fraud, assuming there was fraud, erases a law that Congress passed is incorrect.

28

For the purposeless of this question, I’m not assuming he will be fund guilty. I’m just asking if it’s possible for a civilian to have standing in a courtroom to file the charges.

29

The question isn’t limited to citizens of the United States.

30

My question is specifically about how a citizen could bring war crimes charges against George W. Bush. What the charges would be and whether they are legitimate are questions for a different forum.

31

The answer is no. No private citizen may prosecute a criminal case alone.

32

I was just making a comment about the U.S., I answered your question with the first part of my post.

What about citizens in other countries? From the site in the OP it appears that citizens of Spain could bring a suit against an official of another nation.

NYtimes:

33

But even so, the federal statute against murder is still in effect, is it not? The Authorization gave him the authority to use the Armed Forces of the United States “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in order to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”

What if it can be proven to a jury that Bush knew Iraq wasn’t a threat, and didn’t have WMDs?

34

Can you cite a precedent for charging a president thusly? Can you cite a precedent of charging a president even remotely thusly?

35

I have no idea what the rules are in each of the other countries in the world.

Although I would point out that the line you quote refers to a Spanish judge investigating and charging Pinochet. That’s not a private citizen at work, so even that line doesn’t show that a private citizen may bring war crimes charges.

36

I think the question and answer are more appropriate for Great Debates. I’d like this thread to stick to the original question.

37

The problem is that the language leaves the determination with him – it’s what Bush determines as necessary and appropriate. The language explicitly says it’s his determination – not “what a reasonable man” would determine, not anything except Bush’s own determination.

And we have the principle that criminal statutes are always construed strictly against the government – that is, if there’s ambiguity in a criminal law or condition, it’s always resolved in favor of the accused.

Even if that second principle didn’t exist, there’s no way language that vests the determination with the President alone could be used to show the President had violated it – he’s the guy that gets to decide. (Sorry… but in fact, he’s the decider.)

So, no.

38

I’m afraid I don’t agree that John Mace’s commentary was something to drive the question into Great Debates territory.

When someone aks a question in GQ, the question carries with it some unstated but necessary assumptions.

For example, suppose someone asks, “Is it illegal to give a bottle of alcohol to someone you know is an alcoholic?”

Upon getting an answer that it isn’t, a poster might respond: “Well, what if he was arrested anyway, and what if the prosecutor and the judge and the jury all went along with finding him guilty?”

“Then he’d be released when the case was appealed.”

“But what if the appeals court also went along with it?”

“Then the state supreme court would overturn the verdict.”

“But what if they also went along with it?”

“Then he could file a federal habeas petition and the federal court would order his release as the act of getting imprisoned for a non-existent crime violates the Due Process Clause.”

“But what if the federal courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, what if they ALL went along with it?”

At that point it’s pretty clear that the train has left the station, GQ-wise. It would be nonetheless relevant to ask, “Has there ever been any similar case?” because the inference is that, if there has not, there is no reason to suppose that all these thin ad-hoc assumptions have any realistic application to the question.

If you don’t, then you concede that GQ is meaningless, because any question can be answered a different way if we can continually add ad-hoc assumptions to refine it. “Can a person survive a 100-amp, 10,000 volt shock?” “No.” “But what if they were in the world of Pokemon, because Team Rocket routinely gets shocks that must be that big and they survive!”

Yes, but nothing in the original question suggested we were discussing the world of Pokemon. See the point?

Now, when you ask if the legal system would suddenly accept a dramatically novel theory of criminal liability, you basically move into the world of Pokemon. The original question (presumably) wanted to know about the real world and the realistic possibility of charging Bush with murder. If we assume that the legal system will suddenly begin working in a dramatically new fashion, then how can we possibly begin to answer any legal question? It can’t be done. But if we assume that the legal system will continue to operate as it has, then we may safely answer the question.

And for that reason, John Mace’s point is relevant to GQ. It’s never been done before. It’s never come close to being done before. There is no reason to suspect it would be done differently now.

39

Right. In fact, my point was to not drive it into GD territory, for the reasons I already stated above and you clarified in the rest of that post.

40

I only said they brought the case to court. I have no idea how “war crimes” charges work, but from the article it appears that a human rights group would file a suit and then a judge would decide if there was enough evidence to charge an official with something.