Should he turn Bill Clinton over as well? There was no UN authorization to bomb the shit out of Serbia, and that country was less of a threat to the US than even Iraq was.
The OP is about how Bush’s policies wrt torture open him to legal challenge. They also happen to violate American values.
I think I was 13 when NATO started bombing and so wasn’t exactly well versed in the facts of the matter, and I haven’t read up on it since, so I confess I don’t know about the details. Is Clinton alleged to have ordered the torture of anybody?
If it was an issue of launching a war without UN approval, how is that normally legally handled and are there any charges that have been or would be filed against him?
As a bit of preemption (pun not intended), I’d say that as long as we remain a signatory to various treaties, we should agree to be bound by them. If we don’t want to be, we should withdraw from them. If Clinton violated our treaty obligations, then sure, he should be as vulnerable to the consequences as any other American leader. But being tried doesn’t necessarily mean convicted, and I’d hope that unauthorized humanitarian missions would be treated different then unauthorized wars of aggression, although that’s my IANAL-WAG. Can you elaborate on your analogy?
The war crimes indicated are not necessarily fcor the invasion, buit for the clearly illegal program of torture that was authorized at the highest levels of the administration.
And nothing will ever come of it legally, but I would not be surprised if a “truth commission” is established after Bush leaves office.
Where are “American values” documented?
Well, torture is just one of many war crimes. But the bombing of Serbia was a clear violation of the UN Charter, and if not a war crime, then it certainly was a crime against peace. You can read about it here.
I’m sure there will be a Congressional committee called to investigate all this in, say, ten years or so, which will recommend a bunch of things which will be sloppily implemented and then suspended as soon as the party in power needs it so.
Actual criminal prosecution? Not likely. Censure, maybe.
Let me put this a different way. Whether or not the US committed war crimes in Iraq/Afghanistan, let’s look at OTHER countries for a second. I think that it’s pretty indisputable that during the Old Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan that war crimes were undoubtedly committed. Civilians were deliberately and brutally targeted…even children were directly targeted. Civilians were not only tortured but were summarily executed…not a few, but hundreds of thousands. AFAIK, no Soviet leader either then or now (if any of them are still alive) ever faced war crimes.
I can’t think of any nation in recent history who, not having lost a war and been completely defeated has had their leader taken away for war crimes. Can anyone give me an example of such an event? Unless someone wants to make the case that ONLY the US is guilty of war crimes in the last few decades of course, it would seem that regardless of superpower status or not, no country has their leaders dragged off to trial unless they are a defeated power.
-XT
Agusto Pinochet?
He was charged by Spain for the murder of Spanish citizens, placed under house arrest in Britain, and eventually extradited.
He was tried in his own country, though.
Was that for “war crimes”?
There was no legal framework for prosecuting war crimes when the Soviets were in Afghanistan. I am also unsure the International Criminal Court has a mandate to prosecute previous war crimes before its formation. Finally, the ICC can only prosecute member states of which Russia is not one. They would then need a UN Security Council resolution to do so (and Russia has a permanent seat on the Security Council and veto power).
That is not to say those old Soviets do not deserve to be prosecuted. They probably do.
Further, I do not think the ICC is after leaders anytime a war crime happens during a conflict. Atrocities are practically guaranteed to happen in any armed conflict. The difference is if the leaders made conscious choice to engage in that behavior as a matter of policy.
What leaders have currently been prosecuted for war crimes by the ICC? Any from nations who weren’t on the short end of the stick in a war? All of the things Bush et al has done during this war I’m fairly sure could be found in other conflicts since the formation of the ICC…how many leaders have been dragged off to trial?
What I’m getting at here is there seems to be a double standard…well, maybe a triple standard. Those on the UNSC pretty much make the rules and seem immune to any such charges anyway. Additionally, unless someone has some examples of nations not defeated in war having their leadership dragged off to trial, seems like everyone else is immune to. Yet the US is accused of getting special privileges (which we undoubtedly do considering), and it’s some kind of big deal that such accusations of war crimes aren’t met by us shipping GW and crew (Congress to I assume) off for trial and sentencing in Europe. That strikes me as a bit…odd.
As for the Soviet example, so crimes aren’t retroactive? IOW, only crimes committed after the formation of the ICC are valid?
-XT
No. Kidnapping, human rights abuses, etc. I made a mistake above- he was never tried for any of it, since he died of natural causes before the trial.
No clue honestly. I am not sure what the ICC charter encompasses. But I do know they can only go after member states and Russia is not a member state.
IIRC, neither is the US. But I’m unsure if they have ever tested their powers even among member states. If I have time later I’ll see if I can dig anything up.
-XT
The ICC has yet to issue a ruling on any complaint brought before it. Four investigations are currently underway: International Criminal Court - Wikipedia
Not that surprising, when you think about it. It was chartered in 2002, and considering the length of time it takes a domestic court to try a capital case, any proceeding taking less than five years from complaint to opinion would be fast.
That’s what I was thinking. Pinochet’s arrest wasn’t coordinated by Spain’s parliament or anything, as I understand it: one activist judge (I use the word “activist” here as a compliment) issued a warrant for Pinochet, much to the dismay of Spain’s government. He acted within his jurisdiction, however, and so Pinochet was arrested.
This is the only scenario under which I can imagine any US official facing the consequences of their torture policy. Perhaps they travel to Montreal to give a speech, and a local Canadian judge has them arrested on charges of torturing a Canadian citizen, or something similar. I don’t think any government is likely to do it (governments that would do it aren’t likely to get the opportunity). Unlike with Pinochet, however, I think the US official thus arrested would get sent home posthaste: the US carries a bit more clout.
Daniel
I wonder what Bush’s Secret Service detail would do if a foreign country tried to take Bush into custody? No way they would allow it if he was still president, doubtful they would be more relaxed about it if he was an ex-president.
Which US official(s) tortured a Canadian national?
Heh. I’m guessing that a police force issued an arrest warrant for Bush would, in almost any country on earth, refuse to honor it. I’d be extremely surprised if, facing a force trying to detain the president, the president was arrested and a single member of the secret service detail survived.
That ain’t gonna happen.
I’m more thinking along the lines of Donald Rumsfeld facing such a situation. Even then I see it as extremely unlikely (given how many evil ex-dictators there are and how often these arrests have happened, it wouldn’t be likely even if the US didn’t have Bad Motherfucker written on its wallet), but if it’s a maverick judge, it’s at least possible.
Daniel
We have protections from unreasonable imprisonment, cruel and unusual punishment, inequality before the law, and, torture is of course specifically prohibited under the USC. Just as a jumping off point.
We (the US) expatriate people all the time by force. Presumably the Secret Service would resist unless faced with overwhelming odds.