# Secret Red Cross report says administration officials could face war crimes charges **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 16, 2008, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755 "2008-07-16T22:02:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/1 "2008-07-16T22:02:51Z")
The [New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/washington/11detain.html?bl&ex=1216008000&en=48af597fcdabd556&ei=5087%0A) wrote about this on the 11th. I tried to do a search for this topic and didn’t find anything, so here goes … > [@](#): > > Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes, according to a new book on counterterrorism efforts since 2001. > > The book says that the International Committee of the Red Cross declared in the report, given to the C.I.A. last year, that the methods used on Abu Zubaydah, the first major Qaeda figure the United States captured, were “categorically” torture, which is illegal under both American and international law. The book in question is [The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals by Jane Mayer](http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-American/dp/0385526393/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216245366&sr=1-1) I think the likelihood is very slim that anyone will face charges for what’s being done by the Bush administration, but it seems to me that it’s fairly obvious that the administration’s policy has been to ignore any national or international standards regarding the treatment of persons held in captivity. Questions: 1. Is there any reasonable debate regarding the question of whether the Bush administration policy at the very least constitutes serious violations of the spirit of human and civil rights and might very well constitute war crimes? 2. What is the likelihood that anyone in the Bush administration responsible for putting such policies into effect will be called to answer for them in court? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/2 "2008-07-16T22:13:54Z")
[QUOTE=acsenray] 2. What is the likelihood that anyone in the Bush administration responsible for putting such policies into effect will be called to answer for them in court? [/QUOTE] None. Being a Republican President, he’s above the law. American or international law. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/3 "2008-07-16T22:14:36Z")
[QUOTE=acsenray] 1. Is there any reasonable debate regarding the question of whether the Bush administration policy at the very least constitutes serious violations of the spirit of human and civil rights and might very well constitute war crimes? [/quote] Debate? Sure there’s debate. “Reasonable debate”, “might very well constitute”? Are these firm questions or ambiguous questions? Any side in any war might “reasonably” “violate the spirit of human and civil rights” which “might very well constitute war crimes”, no matter how righteous that side may be in engaging in war. > [@](#): > > 1. What is the likelihood that anyone in the Bush administration responsible for putting such policies into effect will be called to answer for them in court? None. Zero. Zip. Absolutely impossible. I will bet you every dollar I make for the remainder of my life, here and now. Who will “bring them to justice”? How will such a judgment be enforced? What judicial body has jurisdiction over the United States that could try these people for war crimes? The answers, respectively, are Nobody, It can’t, and None. That’s the bottom line. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/4 "2008-07-16T22:18:49Z")
1. I would say that there is little or no debate that launching a war of aggression and imprisoning hundreds or thousands of people for years, without charge and specifically not as prisoners of war, could reasonably justify the bringing of war crimes charges. I am of course, not at all expert on the applicable laws and therefore could be wrong on one or both counts. 2. Even if international charges are eventually brought on members of the Bush administration, IMO the chance of any of the defendents seeing the inside of a courtroom are only slightly above that of my being struck by a meteor in the next 24 hours. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/5 "2008-07-16T22:29:51Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Is there any reasonable debate regarding the question of whether the Bush administration policy at the very least constitutes serious violations of the spirit of human and civil rights and might very well constitute war crimes? Yeah, there would probably be a debate on that. I’m not sure exactly what constitutes ‘war crimes’ exactly, but I assume that some have been violated either by the invasion itself (though I’m unsure on this point) or by some of our subsequent actions (like the imprisonment, torture, etc…though again, no idea if the whole ‘enemy combatant’ thingy would or wouldn’t work as a definition). The thing is though, afaik there really IS no body of law or agency of enforcement for ‘war crimes’, so it seems rather a moot (or mute perhaps) point. > [@](#): > > 1. What is the likelihood that anyone in the Bush administration responsible for putting such policies into effect will be called to answer for them in court? Snow balls in hell have a better chance. Again, exactly who would be bringing charges, who would they be bringing them to, and who would be enforcing them? Anyone COULD bring such charges, but if there is no body of law or enforcement, what exactly would the point be? [QUOTE=Der Trihs] None. Being a Republican President, he’s above the law. American or international law. [/QUOTE] Horseshit. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/6 "2008-07-16T22:39:58Z")
This will never, ever happen, not in a thousand million years. Unfortunately. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/7 "2008-07-16T22:55:44Z")
Has there been any war that we were engaged in that we didn’t commit what could be considered war crimes? And I’m talking about people at the very top. I suppose the First Gulf War might have been “clean”… but Kosovo/Serbia? Vietnam? Korea? even WWII? If we’d lost any of those wars, I can easily see us charged with war crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/8 "2008-07-16T23:26:39Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] I’m not sure exactly what constitutes ‘war crimes’ exactly, but I assume that some have been violated either by the invasion itself (though I’m unsure on this point) or by some of our subsequent actions (like the imprisonment, torture, etc…though again, no idea if the whole ‘enemy combatant’ thingy would or wouldn’t work as a definition). The thing is though, afaik there really IS no body of law or agency of enforcement for ‘war crimes’, so it seems rather a moot (or mute perhaps) point. [/QUOTE] There is a little thing called The Geneva Convention to which the US is a signatory. From there: > [@](#): > > Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: “Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including… wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, …taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.” > > This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes. > > SOURCE: [BBC NEWS | Europe | What is a war crime?](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1420133.stm) Unfortunately it looks like the International Court in the Hague probably would not get to hear the trial. The US is not a signatory to the ICC and the ICC’s jurisdiction is not universal (they can only prosecute those in member states…which seems absurd but that is how it is). The loop hole to this is a recommendation from the UN Security Council in which case they could go after those in non-member states. Except I am pretty sure the US has a veto on the Security Council so could stop it there unless a new president agreed and instructed that it should be allowed through. But I very seriously doubt any US politician would have the guts for that. So Bush is probably safe. Of course each country could try Bush and find him guilty and if he ever comes to their country he’d be arrested pretty much meaning Bush could never leave the US. Not a big deal but could be done. Or a country could pull off an Adolf Eichmann maneuver like the Israelis did where they kidnapped Eichmann and returned him to Israel to be hanged. Yeah yeah…I know not possible (partly because Bush has Secret Service protection forever and for an ex-president we’d probably view that as sufficient provocation to attack militarily) but a guy can dream. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/9 "2008-07-16T23:34:48Z")
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole] Or a country could pull off an Adolf Eichmann maneuver like the Israelis did where they kidnapped Eichmann and returned him to Israel to be hanged. Yeah yeah…I know not possible (partly because Bush has Secret Service protection forever and for an ex-president we’d probably view that as sufficient provocation to attack militarily) but a guy can dream. [/QUOTE] No, he doesn’t. The Republicans limited it to 10 years after leaving office. Still, good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/10 "2008-07-16T23:38:51Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] No, he doesn’t. The Republicans limited it to 10 years after leaving office. Still, good luck with that. [/QUOTE] No. Presidents get it for life. VPs for 10 years, but it can be extended. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/11 "2008-07-16T23:40:23Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] No. Presidents get it for life. VPs for 10 years, but it can be extended. [/QUOTE] [No.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSS#Protection_of_former_Presidents_and_First_Ladies) > [@](#): > > In 1962, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186)[9]to protect a former president and his or her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to ten years after leaving office. Under this new law, individuals who were in office before January 1, 1997 will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals entering office after that time will receive protection for ten years after leaving office. Therefore, former President Bill Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection, and President George W. Bush will be the first to receive protection for only ten years. > > Barbara Bush, Rosalynn Carter, Hillary Clinton, Betty Ford, and Nancy Reagan continue to receive full-time protection as former First Ladies. Laura Bush will also be the first to receive protection for only ten years. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/12 "2008-07-16T23:41:54Z")
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF] [No.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSS#Protection_of_former_Presidents_and_First_Ladies) [/QUOTE] Wow. Ignorance fought. That seems like a stupid law. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2008, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/13 "2008-07-16T23:52:16Z")
“Secret report”? Obviously the secret is out now, but why would the Red Cross prepare a report of any kind with the intention of keeping it secret? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/14 "2008-07-17T00:12:30Z")
It would be nice if the next President, be it McCain or Obama, actually had enough honor to turn Bush over for trial on the choices he’s made over the years. Yes, many of our nation’s actions would make us vulnerable. But no, it’ll never happen. Not ever. Not in a million years. Not only will no American leader send his predecessor to possible imprisonment at foreign hands, he wouldn’t want to establish the precedent should he (or she) feel that the rule of law has to be violated in order to preserve national security. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/15 "2008-07-17T00:18:25Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] “Secret report”? Obviously the secret is out now, but why would the Red Cross prepare a report of any kind with the intention of keeping it secret? [/QUOTE] I don’t know a whole lot about it, but understanding is that the Red Cross gives these reports secretly to the government whose behavior it is criticizing, with the hope of persuading it to change its ways. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/16 "2008-07-17T01:37:55Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] That seems like a stupid law. [/QUOTE] I dont know that its a stupid law. While there is always the potential of violence to a former pres, only George H Bush had any kind of threat that we know of. Enough anyways to bomb saddam in the interval between desert storm and OIF. Unless its some sort of retirement perk for the Secret Service guys , better to have them redeployed for other duties. Coverage for any one ex president can be resumed at the direction of the current president depending on threat level. Declan ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/17 "2008-07-17T02:37:38Z")
_On 10 February 2006, the Prosecutor published a letter responding to complaints he had received concerning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[115] He noted that “the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal”, and that the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the actions of nationals of states parties.[115] He concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that a limited number of war crimes had been committed in Iraq, but that the crimes allegedly committed by nationals of states parties did not appear to meet the required gravity threshold for an ICC investigation.[6_ > **[International Criminal Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court)** > > The International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt) is an intergovernmental organization and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands. It is the first and only permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. The ICC is distinct from the International Court of Justice, an organ of the United Nations that hears disputes between states. > Established in 200... ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/18 "2008-07-17T03:52:53Z")
[QUOTE=acsenray] 2. What is the likelihood that anyone in the Bush administration responsible for putting such policies into effect will be called to answer for them in court? [/QUOTE] When they were discussing this book on NPR the other day, it was speculated that at the end of his term Bush would issue a blanket pardon for anyone involved in (for example) aggressive interrogation techniques. This would prevent anyone (including himself) for every being prosecuted in a US court. As for an international court, I pity the nation that would try to arrest a former high-ranking executive branch official. Sadly, in real life, the bad guys usually get away with it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/19 "2008-07-17T05:38:45Z")
“Therefore, former President Bill Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection, and President George W. Bush will be the first to receive protection for only ten years.” Heh…funny thing is he is probably the first president who needs lifetime protection more than any other past president. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2008, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755/20 "2008-07-17T05:57:01Z")
In Ambrose Bierce’ satirical fantasy collection _Lands Beyond the Blow,_ he wrote of a country where the chief executive rules for one ten-year term and is then executed, on the grounds that anyone who has held supreme power for that long must have committed enough crimes to warrant death even if none can be specifically proved. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secret-red-cross-report-says-administration-officials-could-face-war-crimes-charges/456755.md?page=2)