Once he's out of office, will Bush get indicted?

Great Debates
81

Political question. A president shapes policy by presenting facts which favor his proposed course; this has been true of every president in history. (With the possible exception of William Henry Harrison).

The conclusory allegations in paragraph 15 are incorrect as a matter of law, and, if applied across the board could result in the indictment of every president in living memory.

If applied to members of Congress, similar chaos would ensue.

Congress has specific procedures for requiring truthful testimony in gaining information. This section cannot transform every communication to Congress and to the general public into a legal requirement for inflexible probity.

Even assuming Congress could apply such exacting standards to the rest of the country, it cannot bind the president in this way.

82

Not for our *own * people. “Crimes against peace” were specifically defined in the Nuremberg tribunals, though. But our own refusal to consider that the principle is universal retroactively undermines even those proceedings. No, for this administration, the law is only for the other guys.

As a real-world matter, no, Bush is not going to be indicted, no matter how one applies the “knew or should have known” criterion that gets trotted out so often. Not since his party’s earlier destruction of the credibility of special prosecutors led to the end of the law creating them.

83

It doesn’t appear that they’re exactly overwhelmed with concerns about Constitutional Law but there is a move afoot in Brattleboro, VT, to have a referendum to direct the town attorney to indict Bush and Cheney for “crimes against the Constitution.” Irony abounds there.

84

Is it your* contention that those “crimes against peace” could only be leveled against this administration? I only ask because of your last sentence, which seems to imply that, although you may not have actually meant it that way. Perhaps you only wrote that because this thread is a discussion about Bush.

Because, as I see it, those charges could be leveled against GW Bush (Iraq), Clinton (Iraq, Yugoslavia), GHW Bush (Iraq no-fly zones), Reagan (Libya, Granada), Nixon (Vietnam), Johnson (Vietnam), Kennedy (Vietnam, Cuba)…

Now, the “crimes against peace” charge does have a loophole of self-defense, but none of those military actions could be considered, by any stretch of the imagination, acts of defense against direct threats to this country. And none were approved by the UNSC. Each had different levels of international support, but we have no objective measure of “international support” to exempt them by other than approval by the UNSC.

*although I addressed this to Elvis, I welcome input from anyone else who thinks such charges could be leveled against Bush.

85

Can GWB be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? According to the linked Wikipedia article, the code “applies to all members of the Uniformed Services of the United States”, of which the president is the Commander in Chief, no? I have no idea if this has any validity at all and please feel free to fight my ignorance on this point, but I have not seen this discussed elsewhere.

If so, there are a number of offenses that could be potentially used, such as §893, Article 93, Cruelty and maltreatment, or §897, Article 97, Unlawful Detention, etc. Of course, if the Pres is not officially a member of the “Uniformed Services of the United States”, but only their civilian boss, all of this is moot, but it was an angle I was curious about.

86

The President is not a member of the military, he’s in charge of the military.

87

Exactly. As is the Secretary of Defense. They represent the civilian control of the military, but are not actually part of the military. I guess that’s where the “uniformed” part comes in when speaking of the uniformed services.

88

Thanks Telemark and John Mace. I figured that was probably the case, but had not seen this explicitly discussed anywhere. Consider one small piece of ignorance banished.

89

Not necessarily, of course. But I thought I had made it clear from the context that the definition I was using was one that the US government has defined and endorsed in the past, including executions of those found guilty, not the irrelevant namby-pamby Wiki thing you found instead of looking where I pointed you. So try this instead:

And let’s not forget, while we’re there:

Note especially that a “crime against peace” involves a war of aggression, or in violation of international treaties etc., such as those agreed upon by the UN.

Which of those would you label a war of aggression and why? Your mention of Yugoslavia is especially noncontributive to a serious discussion - the war and geneocide were already well under way, the purpose and result were to end it, and it was done under the auspices of and with the blessing of the bulk of the community of civilized nations, hardly in *violation * of international treaties. Iraq 1 was a similar situation. Vietnam was murkier (and you misspelled Eisenhower, btw), but aggression? Johnson is the only one on your list for whom a case can be made, and history has indeed judged him to be a warmonger.

If you had offered McKinley and Polk instead, I’d agree with you. But there was no legal codification of the principle back then.

Would you like to discuss the subject *seriously * now?

90

Incidentally, if we’re using namby-pamby Wiki references as sources of law, we should consider the doctrine of command responsibility, shouldn’t we? It’s part of US law, after all. Not to mention a good idea. The buck does stop someplace, or at least it’s supposed to.

91

There was no more UN sanction for NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia than there was for the US invasion of Iraq IIRC. So, in that respect (assuming I recall correctly) it was as much a violation of international treaties as the invasion of Iraq. Here is the thing…NATO wasn’t attacked. Which pretty much means that NATO intervention WAS aggression into a local situation. I actually think (for once) NATO did the right thing and showed some balls…but that doesn’t mean that by the strict definition it was kosher. NATO didn’t get UN sanction prior to attacking…and they were obviously the aggressors as THEY hadn’t been attacked.

Because YOU think one was justified and one wasn’t doesn’t mean they were any different. Unless you want to make a better case than you have done here of course.

BTW, how are you defining genocide here? I think you meant ethnic cleansing, but I thought I’d ask.

Disagree. Certainly if you are defining Iraq as a war of aggression I think you could add NATO and Bosnia (with Clinton). Perhaps Bush I could be taken off for the No Fly Zones…though it was obviously a violation of those vaunted international treaties (it wasn’t a war of aggression though). Johnson inherited the situation from Kennedy (I suppose you could make a case that Vietnam wasn’t a war of aggression…but it was prosecuted without that vaunted UN stamp of approval either), so maybe we could let him off the hook as well.
What are the specific penalties btw for violating ‘crimes against peace’? And where would the line be, assuming there are specific penalties for it? Would you draw it at Bush/Chaney? How about the rest of the the Cabinet? How about the some of the Secretaries (like Defense)? How about head of the Intelligence ograns like the NSA or CIA? How about the Senators and Congresscritters who voted for it? SCoTUS? How about the Press (if you want to put THEM against the wall I’m right behind you)?

Thing is, if the US WAS in violation of our treaties on this (something I’m unconvinced of) and if what we did WAS illegal (again), then a lot more people than Bush were responsible. So…where do you draw the line?

Besides, Bush isn’t going to get indicted in the US for that…because it was perfectly legal what he did. If you are going to pin something on him it isn’t going to be some vague international crimes against humanity for Iraq thingy…it’s going to be some skeleton in the closet that comes out and bites him on the ass. THAT is something that could actually happen.

-XT

92

Didn’t say there was. Read again. I understand quite well that Russia had to veto it because of their ancient alliance with Serbia. The police action was undertaken by, essentially, the UN minus Russia. What, do you think the UN’s military capability is *not * based on NATO’s, or that different governments are involved?

Nope. The UN treaty was technically violated, the NATO treaty was technically upheld. Which approach do you think was the one chosen by most of the civilized world?

Now, “as much” as the invasion of Iraq? That did not have the sanction of anybody but the Coalition of the Bought, certainly not the bulk of the civilized world. False equivalence there, utterly false.

Did you miss the part about the war already being under way?

No, but because I can explain WHY does.

The only difference is that in ethnic cleansing you don’t *necessarily * go hunt down the people you expelled and try to kill them elsewhere. I don’t think that difference matters, but you’re welcome to it.

Why not just accuse him of dog-wagging while you’re at it? :dubious:

He inherited a few advisers visiting a civil war. The escalation that turned it into a war of aggression was squarely his.

Execution at Nuremberg, life imprisonment at the Hague.

What is this “line” you speak of? When has the leader of a government *not * been responsible for its going to war?

Those who made the decisions and gave the orders are responsible for them. Those who carried them out in good faith are not. Those have been the principles ever since “crimes against peace” have been codified.

I would have added “of course” to that except that you don’t seem to be willing to hold them responsible. Why?

“Perfectly”? That was a pretty blithe dismissal of a number of things that have been brought up in this thread and associated links. I should note that Rumsfeld has *already * been indicted for war crimes (in Germany, under the principle of universal jurisdiction for them)

I certainly agree it won’t happen in the US under US-only law. But that is for domestic political reasons - quite a few people supported him in those actions for quite a long time, and to indict him for them would be to accept a share of moral responsibility themselves. Human nature doesn’t permit that easily.

93

Bush clearly broke the law by violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Nixon faced impeachment for abuse of power - illegal wiretapping and other forms of domestic spying before congress passed FISA . I am sure a strong case can be made against G.W. Bush for the same/similar crimes, but what is the point once he leaves office.

The decisions President Bush made concerning torture, military tribunals, warrantless wiretapping, etc., were approved by the Office of Legal Council in the name of national security and later justified in a DOJ White Paper.
Although I am not certain, I think the OLC’s interpretation of the Constitution as it pertains to executive power protects Bush or at least gives him an excuse.

The Iraq War and Patriot Act were approved by Congress. The Patriot Act gave President Bush the legal authority to wait 72 hours before seeking a warrant for domestic spying, not that the 72 hour rule meant anything to President Bush when he secretly authorized data mining and broad, indiscriminate domestic spying.

I agree with others in this thread. At this point, another impeachment is not going to help this nation heal. It is time to move forward, repair the damage, and let Bush live with his legacy.

94

Whether Congress or a Special Prosecutor investigates or not, this president will be investigated as far as humanly possible. There is much we don’t know that will yet make us livid.

I agree there will be no criminall indictments within the U.S. It will be interesting to see what actions other countries take.

It’s hard for me to think of anything more deserving of prison.

Oh damn. We forgot to pass a law in this country against conspiring to torture people.

But maybe we can find something else…

Check the Codes under Nero: Fiddling While Rome Burned. Sorry I can’t cite sections and numbers and so forth. In the index it’s right after Nawlins and right before New Orleans.

95

Which will just set the stage for an even worse President, with even greater contempt for the law. Letting Bush off the hook won’t let the nation heal or repair the damage; it will make the damage permanent, or nearly so. Just as pardoning Nixon did. All it does is underline the fact that there’s no reason for a President to be anything other than contemptuous of the law or ethics, because there are no punishments for violating them.

THAT will be Bush’s legacy. That he’s done everything he’s done, and will get away with it all.

96

You understand, though, that for every single criminal prosecution in this country – not just for the President - you can’t say, “We’re prosecuting you because I can’t think of anything more deserving of prison.” You have to be able to point to an actual law, on paper somewhere.

Well, sort of. You forgot to pass a law that prohbits exactly what was done that Bush conspired to do.

Listen to yourself. If a prosecutor ever went after some homeless guy for conduct that was despicable but not illegal, and urged a jury to jail the guy even though there was no law, just because his conduct offended us all… you’d be outraged.

But, because you personally hate Bush, you are willing to cast away all the criminal protections that every other criminal defendent in the country is entitled to.

That about cover it?

97

All were acts of aggression. If not, can you explain in what way were defending ourselves from an attack?

With Yugoslavia, just because there was a humanitarian motive (supposedly) doesn’t make it defensive. We were not attacked by Yugoslavia. NATO was not attacked by Yugoslavia. It was not two different countries going at each other, but an internal conflict. We jumped in, as an act of aggression.

And the Iraq No Fly Zones (Bush-Clinton-Bush) were declared illegal by Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Again, a clear act of aggression, without sanction by the UNSC.

The rule is simple. If you are not attacking as an act of defense, you are attacking as an act of aggression. No matter what your motive, it is aggression. And if you do not have the sanction of the UNSC, then you’re in violation of international law.

Don’t go getting all funny on us again, Elvis.

98

We actually do have one for that:
18 U.S.C. § 2340A: Torture

99

Sure. Problem is, it doesn’t cover what Bush, personally, has done or conspired to do.

100

Didn’t mean to claim he did (or didn’t), just pointing out for general edification that we do have a statute against torture and conspiracy to commit torture in the U.S. Code.