# What are the odds Congress will go after Bush officials for abuses of power? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 22, 2009, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428 "2009-01-22T08:55:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/21 "2009-01-22T16:58:49Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > My sister asked me a question last night that, embarrassingly, stopped me right in my tracks. > > I know about the possible illegalities with the appointment of federal prosecutors, vaguely. > > But in an ideal world, a world in which the Administration would be called to account for the worst of their crimes, **what laws would they be charged under**? > > I’m not asking for general descriptions of their crimes (approving and ordering torture, lying our way into a war, signing statements that undermine laws, and so on). I want to hear about specific laws, with names or numbers, that the administration arguably violated. > > Daniel The laws that they broke are actually not so much the problem as that I don’t believe any sort of _penalties_ are listed. “We agree to not torture foreign nationals.” And if we do it anyways well…sorry! ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/22 "2009-01-22T17:19:57Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The laws that they broke are actually not so much the problem as that I don’t believe any sort of _penalties_ are listed. “We agree to not torture foreign nationals.” And if we do it anyways well…sorry! Some of the laws they are alleged to have broken certainly do have criminal penalties. From the torture statute (18 USC 2340) to FISA (50 USC 1801) to obstructing Congress (18 USC 1505) to other ones, there are many laws they’ve allegedly broken that have criminal penalties. If you’ve got more time than I have at the moment, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. has released a few different reports about the Bush administrations’ penchant for breaking the law. [Here’s a brief article about one from 2006](http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/95). And I noticed on the Congressional website that he has just released a “a nearly-500 page report documenting numerous abuses and excesses of the Bush administration. The report, titled “Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the presidency of George W. Bush,” contains 47 separate recommendations designed to restore the traditional checks and balances of our constitutional system.” Since I haven’t read it, I can’t tell you whether it is good, bad, or boring as hell. But it sounds like it would make a nice little light reading. [Click here for link to report](http://judiciary.house.gov/news/090113_1.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/23 "2009-01-22T17:46:22Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > My sister asked me a question last night that, embarrassingly, stopped me right in my tracks. > > I know about the possible illegalities with the appointment of federal prosecutors, vaguely. > > But in an ideal world, a world in which the Administration would be called to account for the worst of their crimes, **what laws would they be charged under**? > > I’m not asking for general descriptions of their crimes (approving and ordering torture, lying our way into a war, signing statements that undermine laws, and so on). I want to hear about specific laws, with names or numbers, that the administration arguably violated. I don’t wish to appear petty, but I have been asking that same question on these forums ever since people began screaming that Bush should be in prison. I guess I’m not as memorable as your sister. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![shallora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f9ae1b/32.png) [@shallora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shallora)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/24 "2009-01-22T18:03:27Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > My sister asked me a question last night that, embarrassingly, stopped me right in my tracks. > > I know about the possible illegalities with the appointment of federal prosecutors, vaguely. > > But in an ideal world, a world in which the Administration would be called to account for the worst of their crimes, **what laws would they be charged under**? > > I’m not asking for general descriptions of their crimes (approving and ordering torture, lying our way into a war, signing statements that undermine laws, and so on). I want to hear about specific laws, with names or numbers, that the administration arguably violated. > > Daniel Ditto this. I think Liberals are just still miffed that Bush simply didn’t vote THEIR way or do things the way THEY would have done them. Clinton lied under oath. He was impeached. This was a legitimate result of a very provable, specific, crime. Having nothing similar to get Bush with, they are simply going with “we don’t like him, so we must get him up on SOMETHING.” ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/25 "2009-01-22T18:09:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t wish to appear petty, but I have been asking that same question on these forums ever since people began screaming that Bush should be in prison. > > I guess I’m not as memorable as your sister. ☹ Nah. You apparently just ignore the posts, like the one right before yours right here, that give you the answers. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/26 "2009-01-22T21:20:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > To make sure they **never come back,** like Cheney did after serving in the Nixon WH. You missed the point. The time was ripe for Congress to actually make a real difference, and they decided not to. Why would we suddenly expect them to grow a collective nutsack and order the investigations NOW? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/27 "2009-01-22T21:30:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t wish to appear petty, but I have been asking that same question on these forums ever since people began screaming that Bush should be in prison. > > I guess I’m not as memorable as your sister. ☹ And _who_ are you again? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/28 "2009-01-22T21:32:08Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > Zero. Squared. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/29 "2009-01-22T21:49:50Z")
> [@shallora](#): > > I think Liberals are just still miffed that Bush simply didn’t vote THEIR way or do things the way THEY would have done them. You don’t think there’s any chance it could have anything to do with warmongering, torture, or wiretapping, for starters? No? Those are just “policy differences”, not crimes, huh? Bush didn’t “vote” on any of this, btw. \*Congress \*votes. Bush was _President_. Sheesh. ---
**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:** [January 22, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/30 "2009-01-22T22:01:49Z")
Well, how are the impeachment proceedings against Chaney and Bush progressing these days? Any progress there? That answer the question? -XT ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/31 "2009-01-22T23:06:38Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The laws that they broke are actually not so much the problem as that I don’t believe any sort of _penalties_ are listed. “We agree to not torture foreign nationals.” And if we do it anyways well…sorry! Well, the Nuremberg tribunal seemed to find that torture, waging and aggressive war and similar things deserved the death penalty for the accused. > [@](#): > > …the waging of aggressive war is essentially an evil thing … to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. > > - > - > - International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg Where did they get that notion? Or are we now saying they had no authority to do what they did? Whatever gave them the authority to try the Germans would be more than sufficient authority to try those who started a war of aggression and torture in Washington. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/32 "2009-01-22T23:14:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t wish to appear petty, but I have been asking that same question on these forums ever since people began screaming that Bush should be in prison. > > I guess I’m not as memorable as your sister. ☹ **Bricker** , not to seem petty, but **Hamlet’s** question is a very good one: did you not see his posts 19 and 22? Thanks, **Hamlet** –that’s exactly the kind of stuff I’m looking for. I’ll take a look at it now. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/33 "2009-01-22T23:26:57Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Some of the laws they are alleged to have broken certainly do have criminal penalties. From the torture statute (18 USC 2340) to FISA (50 USC 1801) to obstructing Congress (18 USC 1505) to other ones, there are many laws they’ve allegedly broken that have criminal penalties. > > If you’ve got more time than I have at the moment, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. has released a few different reports about the Bush administrations’ penchant for breaking the law. [Here’s a brief article about one from 2006](http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/95). And I noticed on the Congressional website that he has just released a “a nearly-500 page report documenting numerous abuses and excesses of the Bush administration. The report, titled “Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the presidency of George W. Bush,” contains 47 separate recommendations designed to restore the traditional checks and balances of our constitutional system.” Since I haven’t read it, I can’t tell you whether it is good, bad, or boring as hell. But it sounds like it would make a nice little light reading. [Click here for link to report](http://judiciary.house.gov/news/090113_1.html) So there’s something of an embarrassment of riches in this post–huge amounts of information. I appreciate it, but will just digest a bit of it at a time. For example, you mention [url=[http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc\_sec\_18\_00002340---A000-.html](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html)]the torture statute (18 USC 2340) [/quote] . Here’s the relevant parts from this, IMO: > [@](#): > > (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; > (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— > (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; > (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; > (C) the threat of imminent death; or > (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality There’s our definition. I think there’s an extremely strong (certainly an indictably strong) case that waterboarding is torture under this definition. Now, the crime: > [@](#): > > (a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. > (b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if— > (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or > (2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender. > (c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy. If CIA operatives outside of the United States committed torture, they’re covered by (a). If Administration officials conspired with these operatives, they should be covered by (c). There appears to me to be enough evidence to warrant further investigation into whether Bush himself violated (c). My ignorance of the law may apply here, although I don’t think it does. Obviously laws like kidnapping don’t apply to police who arrest a suspect and transport them to jail; I assume some statute grants the police the power to make such detentions without violating the law. I assume there’s no such statute granting the president the right to torture, is there? **Bricker** , would you agree that CIA waterboarding, and the previous Administration’s apparent condoning of this technique, warrants further investigation as I suggest above? If not, what am I missing? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/34 "2009-01-22T23:52:46Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > If not, what am I missing? The relatively high standard we have for evidence for criminal offenses. Barring an order with Bush’s signature on it specifically ordering a subject to being tortured, all you’ve got is basically ‘Bad things happened under his watch, let’s get him!’ ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/35 "2009-01-22T23:55:05Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > The relatively high standard we have for evidence for criminal offenses. Barring an order with Bush’s signature on it specifically ordering a subject to being tortured, all you’ve got is basically ‘Bad things happened under his watch, let’s get him!’ Let me repeat the question, with helpful formatting: > [@me](#): > > Bricker, would you agree that CIA waterboarding, and the previous Administration’s apparent condoning of this technique, warrants further investigation as I suggest above? That deals with your implication that I’m talking about whether we currently have enough evidence for conviction. There’s another faulty premise in your post: conspiracy convictions can occur with evidence shy of an order with the conspirator’s signature on it. You can have evidence of a conspiracy even without written orders. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/36 "2009-01-23T00:10:00Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > There’s another faulty premise in your post: conspiracy convictions can occur with evidence shy of an order with the conspirator’s signature on it. You can have evidence of a conspiracy even without written orders. Great. Lets start the witch hunt then. You go get the warrant, and I’ll get the stake out car. What’s that? The judge wanted probably cause? Well, what did you tell him? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/37 "2009-01-23T00:29:43Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Great. Lets start the witch hunt then. I checked and I didn’t see anyone calling for a witch hunt. Or immediately getting search warrants. And the OP wasn’t strictly about Bush himself, but “Bush administration officials”. Did I miss something, or have you already made up your mind on the entire things? If so, please, by all means, do share your thoughts with the rest of the class. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/38 "2009-01-23T00:35:38Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Great. Lets start the witch hunt then. You go get the warrant, and I’ll get the stake out car. What’s that? The judge wanted probably cause? Well, what did you tell him? That high level Bush administration officials admitted that they waterboarded prisoners? > [@](#): > > Senate Democrats demanded a criminal investigation into waterboarding by government interrogators after the Bush administration admitted for the first time that the tactic was used on three terror suspects.0206 08 > > In congressional testimony, CIA director Michael Hayden became the first administration official to publicly acknowledge the agency used waterboarding on detainees following the September 11 2001, terrorist attacks. > > Waterboarding involves strapping a suspect down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years, to the Spanish Inquisition, and is condemned by nations around the world. > > “We used it against these three detainees because of the circumstances at the time,” Mr Hayden told the Senate Intelligence Committee. > > “There was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were inevitable. And we had limited knowledge about al Qaida and its workings. Those two realities have changed.” [http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/06/6886](http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/06/6886) I believe Cheney also confirmed it at one point. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/39 "2009-01-23T00:36:03Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I checked and I didn’t see anyone calling for a witch hunt. Or immediately getting search warrants. And the OP wasn’t strictly about Bush himself, but “Bush administration officials”. Did I miss something, or have you already made up your mind on the entire things? If so, please, by all means, do share your thoughts with the rest of the class. Here’s the relevant part: > [@](#): > > There appears to me to be enough evidence to warrant further investigation into whether Bush himself violated (c). ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428/40 "2009-01-23T00:40:03Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Here’s the relevant part: What part of “further investigation” = “witch hunt”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-congress-will-go-after-bush-officials-for-abuses-of-power/482428.md?page=3)