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

Great Debates
101

I’m not Wee Bairn, but I think it’s been incontrovertible since 2003 that there have members of Bush’s administration guilty of violating the letter of the law & of ordering others to do so.

Not because of Iraq; I didn’t consider that a crime at the time, just a wildly dubious policy. Rather, because of the treatment of non-uniformed combatants before the invasion.

There are prohibitions on torture & assassination. There are rules for nonlawful combatants & non-uniformed fighters in the Geneva Conventions, which are the law of the land, even now. There are fundamental protections afforded to criminal suspects. There are constitutional divisions of power between the executive & the judiciary.

As for Iraq, there also are rules about lying to Congress.

At least some of these have remedies, surely; not to have them would make our Constitution & laws a Big Fat Lie. Perhaps not all of the remedies would apply to W himself, but they would apply to some in his government.

It’s not a lack of statute that gets in the way, it’s the will of the people–or those among our people who think he makes us “safe.”

And yes, Reagan’s foreign-policy administration were in fact a bunch of criminals. That’s not opinion, but historical fact. They were pardoned by Bush pere.

102

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sure. Problem is, it doesn’t cover what Bush, personally, has done or conspired to do.
[/QUOTE]
You don’t know what he’s conspired to do or not. We all know what has been done under his authority, and it beggars belief that he wouldn’t be aware of any of it.

You are *not * his lawyer, he is *not * your client, and there is no need for you to be practicing your opening statements at his trial. The point of view of a responsible citizen would be more appropriate for you to be using here.

John, it seems the answer to my question about your interest in discussing the subject *seriously * is, once again, No.

Pity.

103

[QUOTE=John Mace]
…
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.

…
[/QUOTE]
Not strictly speaking true. Defence of others under attack is not violative.

That description seems the best fit with the Balkan intervention.

104

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sure. Problem is, it doesn’t cover what Bush, personally, has done or conspired to do.
[/QUOTE]

Well that’s one lawyer’s opinion, but hardly settled law.

The question is whether the Democrats could find a lawyer with one fraction of the malice the GOP exhibits by the hour, so that Bush could be hounded to his grave for his crimes.

105

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
That description seems the best fit with the Balkan intervention.
[/QUOTE]

I smell…rationalization. Did any official ASK for NATO intervention?

Put another way, one could rationalize the attack by the US on Iraq in a similar way. We were simply defending the poor Shi’ia from the evil clutches of Saddam and the Sunni…

-XT

106

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Not strictly speaking true. Defence of others under attack is not violative.
[/quote]

Really? Can we have a cite for that? And, please define “others”. There is a clear process outlined in the UN charter, and you don’t attack without UNSC authorization unless you are under imminent attack.

It was not a “Balkan” intervention. There is no country called Balka. It was an intervention into the internal affairs of a sovereign country-- Yugoslavia. Sorta like Iraq, except done correctly (no ground troops).

107

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I smell…rationalization. Did any official ASK for NATO intervention?
[/QUOTE]
Whether an official did or did not, why should that change anything? It is not a rationalization at all.

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Put another way, one could rationalize the attack by the US on Iraq in a similar way. We were simply defending the poor Shi’ia from the evil clutches of Saddam and the Sunni…

-XT
[/QUOTE]
And indeed many now rationalize in exactly that manner. Who is fooled, though, other than the pre-fooled?

Whereas in the case of the Balkan intervention, defence of others was pretty plainly, the reason. Nobody is arguing otherwise, are they?

108

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Really? Can we have a cite for that? And, please define “others”. There is a clear process outlined in the UN charter, and you don’t attack without UNSC authorization unless you are under imminent attack.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve got this all wrong, but I’ve had enough for the day and I’ll leave the correction to others. Lazy huh!

How does this:
[QUOTE=John Mace]
It was not a “Balkan” intervention. There is no country called Balka.
[/QUOTE]
contradict this:
[QUOTE=John Mace]
It was an intervention into the internal affairs of a sovereign country-- Yugoslavia. Sorta like Iraq, except done correctly (no ground troops).
[/QUOTE]
?

109

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Whether an official did or did not, why should that change anything? It is not a rationalization at all.
[/QUOTE]

It IS rationalization though. Yugoslavia WAS a sovereign nation, just like Iraq was. Yugoslavia didn’t request help. NATO wasn’t attacked…so there WAS no defense. AFAIK there is nothing in the charter about attacking a sovereign nation during a civil war. Could you point out where in the charter it says that what NATO did was ok?

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
And indeed many now rationalize in exactly that manner. Who is fooled, though, other than the pre-fooled?
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Of course, you are looking very similar by trying to hand wave on one side while berating on the other. Nothing like looking through partisan glasses I always say.

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Whereas in the case of the Balkan intervention, defence of others was pretty plainly, the reason.
[/QUOTE]

So…what you seem to be saying is that it is ok to violate the charter when it’s in a good cause. That is what we commonly refer to as ‘rationalizing’.

I happen to agree btw (I actually think there is a lot in the charter that is out dated or just plain BS…which is probably why nations tend to ignore it when they need and tearfully point to it as a grail when that suits their politics)…but, I know it for what it is. You don’t seem to.

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Nobody is arguing otherwise, are they?
[/QUOTE]

What we are arguing here is that the situations are the same from the viewpoint of the letter of the charter. It seems to be ok to violate it ‘in a good cause’…and anathema when it’s not. To put it another way…when Clinton did it a certain segment of the political spectrum (and our Euro buddies who did the heavy lifting violation wise) thought that was peachy while another thought it was bad. When Bush did it those positions reversed.

Personally I think Clinton at least didn’t get us (the US…the Euro’s had a bit of a different experience I’m thinking) into a quagmire war that is dragging on for what looks to be years to come, nor did he costs us hundreds of billions for what looks like little gain to me. So, afaiac he is WAY ahead of the game wrt Bush. I give Clinton full marks in retrospect.

NATO and the US still violated the charter same as the US and the Brits did in Iraq, and all the hand waving in the world won’t make that go away.

-XT

110

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
You’ve got this all wrong, but I’ve had enough for the day and I’ll leave the correction to others.
[/quote]

Well, that’s not an argument, just a statement with nothing supporting it. I’ll wait until you have something.

It wasn’t meant to point out a contradiction, but a factual error. You talk about the “Balkan intervention”, which is an thinly veiled attempt to divert attention from the fact that it was an intervention into the internal affairs of a sovereign country. But calling it a “Balkan intervention” makes it sound like there were two Balkan countries going at each other and all we did was take sides. I would say “nice try”, but it wasn’t.

111

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, that’s not an argument, just a statement with nothing supporting it. I’ll wait until you have something.
[/QUOTE]
Better in argumentative force to what you have argued. No cites in your posts either.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
It wasn’t meant to point out a contradiction, but a factual error. You talk about the “Balkan intervention”, which is an thinly veiled attempt to divert attention from the fact that it was an intervention into the internal affairs of a sovereign country. But calling it a “Balkan intervention” makes it sound like there were two Balkan countries going at each other and all we did was take sides. I would say “nice try”, but it wasn’t.
[/QUOTE]
That’s piffle John, and ease back there with suggestions of bad faith. ‘Balkan intervention’, because it was an intervention in the Balkans. There is no rational hangup with soveriegn nations.

Now, substance. Link

Was that not the reason for the action under discussion?

Unfortunatell the law journals discussing the question in detail are not available online, to the extent of my researches (others may do better). So, Wiki it is:

Link 2

(emphasis added)

Sadly then, the answer is that you are not going to get a hard an fast answer re legality. Unlike Iraq, where you do.

Except in the US that is, where the greatest achievement of the administration has been to bring to an end the notion that the US enjoys the rule of law. Plainly it does not: Lewis Libby, Guantanamo, Phone/Email Taps and yes, Iraq.

112

What “overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe” was taking place in Yugoslavia? The displacement of the ethnic Albanians took place after we started bombing. Even then, displacement hardly rises to the level of a catastrophe. One could make the argument about a humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq much more readily than in Yugoslavia.

113

[QUOTE=xtisme]
It IS rationalization though. Yugoslavia WAS a sovereign nation, just like Iraq was. Yugoslavia didn’t request help. NATO wasn’t attacked…so there WAS no defense. AFAIK there is nothing in the charter about attacking a sovereign nation during a civil war. Could you point out where in the charter it says that what NATO did was ok?
[/QUOTE]
Twasn’t. See previous
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Exactly. Of course, you are looking very similar by trying to hand wave on one side while berating on the other. Nothing like looking through partisan glasses I always say.
[/QUOTE]
Oh Please. Attacking me as a partisan?
[QUOTE=xtisme]
So…what you seem to be saying is that it is ok to violate the charter when it’s in a good cause. That is what we commonly refer to as ‘rationalizing’.
[/QUOTE]
Common indeed. However, that is more or less the legal understanding; it is not violation provided the cause is good for the right reasons.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
…What we are arguing here is that the situations are the same from the viewpoint of the letter of the charter. It seems to be ok to violate it ‘in a good cause’…and anathema when it’s not. To put it another way…when Clinton did it a certain segment of the political spectrum (and our Euro buddies who did the heavy lifting violation wise) thought that was peachy while another thought it was bad. When Bush did it those positions reversed.
[/QUOTE]
No, Clinton’s allows some ambiguity. Bush’s doesn’t.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
…NATO and the US still violated the charter same as the US and the Brits did in Iraq, and all the hand waving in the world won’t make that go away.

-XT
[/QUOTE]
Did I aver earlier to the weakness of personal attacks? Did.

114

[QUOTE=John Mace]
What “overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe” was taking place in Yugoslavia? The displacement of the ethnic Albanians took place after we started bombing. Even then, displacement hardly rises to the level of a catastrophe. One could make the argument about a humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq much more readily than in Yugoslavia.
[/QUOTE]
Good square question. The second one not so.

More later.

115

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Good square question. The second one not so.
[/QUOTE]

There was only one question.

Remember, the Iraq No Fly Zones (declared illegal by the UN SecGen, btw) were instituted because SH was slaughtering his own people. We we not obliged to maintain those (illegal as they were) and there was no reason to think that the slaughter would not continue if we disabled them. There is nothing that happened in Yugoslavia before we started bombing that didn’t happen 10 times over in Iraq.

But just to be clear: I am not justifying the Iraq War. I think it was a terrible mistake. But the intervention in Yugoslavia was as much an act of aggression as our invasion of Iraq, even if the former was executed better.

116

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Twasn’t. See previous
[/QUOTE]

I’ve seen nothing you’ve written that disproves my own point. Certainly not so blithely.

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Oh Please. Attacking me as a partisan?
[/QUOTE]

Attacking is to strong a term. I’m saying you are acting like a partisan, no better than the partisan Bush types who defend the invasion of Iraq to this day. It’s all rationalization and handwaving to justify either way.

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Common indeed. However, that is more or less the legal understanding; it is not violation provided the cause is good for the right reasons.
[/QUOTE]

Well, at least you admit it here. Means justify the ends and all that. However it IS still a violation regardless of the cause. It’s just that one can rationalize and justify one’s actions if the ‘cause is good for the right reasons’. If I steal from the bank because I’m poor and my family is starving then ‘the cause is good for the right reasons’. It’s still illegal and a crime however…regardless of how good the cause is. If me and my chums go in and trash one of those fur production farms and we set all the animals free of their cages so they can escape then our cause is good…but what we’ve done is still illegal.

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
No, Clinton’s allows some ambiguity. Bush’s doesn’t.
[/QUOTE]

The ambiguity is only when one looks at the issues in a partisan manner. If one thinks the cause is just then the actions that follow are good and right. If one thinks the cause is unjust then the opposite. However, looked at dispassionately both are equal in terms of the letter of the law.

As I said, I have some sympathy with your stance here. I think Clinton (or NATO in this case) did the right thing in the Balkins. I think Bush et al did the wrong thing in Iraq. That doesn’t change the basic fact that both were wrong by the letter of the charter however.

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Did I aver earlier to the weakness of personal attacks? Did.
[/QUOTE]

You lost me. What are you talking about here?

-XT

117

[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Well that’s one lawyer’s opinion, but hardly settled law.

[/quote]

True. For it to be “settled law” we’d have to have a grand jury indict him, a judge rule in his favor and quash the indictment, and the decision appealed to and upheld at the circuit.

But because we all seem to agree an indictment isn’t going to happen, it seems relatively certain that we’ll never get “settled law” on the issue. If your requirement for being convinced is “settled law,” then it seems we’re all in agreement that it’s very unlikely to happen.