# Will anyone from the Bush administration be tried **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 6, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374 "2005-12-06T16:39:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/41 "2005-12-07T15:28:57Z")
> [@someone447](#): > > I’m with Bricker on this one, even if you find a law, now you have to prove that Bush ordered it. Not that the CIA head did it without Bush’s consent, truthfully, it would end up the director at whatever place it took place(that was an awkward sentance). Then, guess what a term or two from now, the President will pardon him. It wouldn’t matter if it is a Democrat or a Republican, someone will pardon whoever would take the fall. It is almost impossible to pin this on Bush or his cabinet. You’re not really with me. The objections you raise are matters of proof and the resolution you posit supports the idea that the President is “above the law.” In other words, you’re saying that regardless of what the law is, the guy will get away with violating it. This is the precise lament voiced by the OP. My point is that THERE IS NO CRIMINAL LAW BEING VIOLATED. The outrage manufactured at Bush because he’s “above the law” is silly, because no one has alleged that his acts violate any particular law. Do you ken the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Martiju](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@Martiju](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martiju)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/42 "2005-12-07T15:31:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you believe you read and fully understood **Martin Hyde** ’s post? > > He said that violation wasn’t a crime on an individual level. > > In seeming rebuttal, you point out a remedy for a violation that was taken… against an entire country. If anything, what you said _supports_ the idea that violation isn’t a crime on an individual level. Believe it or not, I’m not stupid. The remedy for violation was, repeatedly, claimed to be the removal of SH - the regime change. Of course this affected the whole country, but the whole country was not punished deliberately. If they were, then surely the rhetoric about the ‘good Iraqis’ being on ‘our side’ is pure BS? Similarly, should Bush (or any of the administration) be legally challenged, it would of course affect the whole of the US. I have a lot of respect for you bricker, and surely you can’t be saying that the whole war wasn’t an act against SH, but against Iraq? As it happens, I’d want more evidence of whether their actions are illegal or not - they’ve ducked much stronger evidence of shady activity already, after all. ---
**Author:** ![ccwaterback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@ccwaterback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ccwaterback)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/43 "2005-12-07T15:36:26Z")
Actually I see the light now. There have been no laws broken when we torture our prisoners on war. In fact, we should encourage this practice to be performed more often. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/44 "2005-12-07T15:39:23Z")
> [@Martiju](#): > > Believe it or not, I’m not stupid. > > The remedy for violation was, repeatedly, claimed to be the removal of SH - the regime change. Of course this affected the whole country, but the whole country was not punished deliberately. If they were, then surely the rhetoric about the ‘good Iraqis’ being on ‘our side’ is pure BS? Similarly, should Bush (or any of the administration) be legally challenged, it would of course affect the whole of the US. > > I have a lot of respect for you bricker, and surely you can’t be saying that the whole war wasn’t an act against SH, but against Iraq? The war was NOT an exercise of an individual penalty against Hussein. If it were, then the Iraqi government would have been left intact to replace Hussein however they saw fit. Instead, US military power was used to shatter the entire regime - the existing system of government - and force the Iraqis to construct a new, democratically-elected government, complete with constitution and voting rights for women. In no wise can this be viewed as the exercise of an individual, criminal penalty against one man. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/45 "2005-12-07T15:40:34Z")
> [@ccwaterback](#): > > Actually I see the light now. There have been no laws broken when we torture our prisoners on war. In fact, we should encourage this practice to be performed more often. Astute readers: does the post above contain a logical fallacy? What is it? ---
**Author:** ![Martiju](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@Martiju](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martiju)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/46 "2005-12-07T15:45:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The war was NOT an exercise of an individual penalty against Hussein. If it were, then the Iraqi government would have been left intact to replace Hussein however they saw fit. _Instead, US military power was used to shatter the entire regime - the existing system of government - and force the Iraqis to construct a new, democratically-elected government, complete with constitution and voting rights for women._ > > In no wise can this be viewed as the exercise of an individual, criminal penalty against one man. Maybe you’re right, and that’s your opinion. However, I believe that this was an act carried out specifically because of who was in charge, in both Iraq and the US. You’re certainly right that it was not a criminal penalty, because the trial, for what it’s worth, is happening after the retribution. Also, the question of why (with reference to the italicised quote) remains. And why not for all those other countries that are still undemocratic, have no constitution or don’t allow women the vote? Probably a discussion for another thread. ---
**Author:** ![ccwaterback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@ccwaterback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ccwaterback)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/47 "2005-12-07T15:47:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Astute readers: does the post above contain a logical fallacy? What is it? So, exactly WHY shouldn’t we encourage these things? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/48 "2005-12-07T15:50:46Z")
> [@Martiju](#): > > Maybe you’re right, and that’s your opinion. However, I believe that this was an act carried out specifically because of who was in charge, in both Iraq and the US. You’re certainly right that it was not a criminal penalty, because the trial, for what it’s worth, is happening after the retribution. We may be speaking of different things. You seem to be saying the _motivation_ for pursuing the war was specific ire at one person. That may, or may not, be true. A good analogy might be a prosecutor that harbors a dislike for someone. When criminal conduct by that person comes to light, he aggresively prosecutes, where he might have gone lightly on another person, or even ignored it altogether. Regardless of his motivations, though, if the person really did commit the criminal acts, then the prosecution is legal, even if it was motivated by personal animus. So, too, here. The penalty levelled against Iraq is not a personal, but a national one. It may, or may not, have been _motivated_ by personal animus; for this discussion, I take no position on that question. But whether it was or was not doesn’t change the fact that the violation of a UN resolution resulted in a NATIONAL penalty, not a personal, criminal penalty. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/49 "2005-12-07T15:54:01Z")
> [@ccwaterback](#): > > So, exactly WHY shouldn’t we encourage these things? As a moral proposition, torture is almost always wrong. From a practical perspective, it is a highly unreliable method of obtaining accurate information. That’s why. ---
**Author:** ![Martiju](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@Martiju](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martiju)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/50 "2005-12-07T15:57:08Z")
Again, it’s a fair point. However, I think it’s arguable whether you can really disentangle the men from the policy. In other words, I think that the effect of the retribution was national, but the aim personal (ie. not the motivation, but the action). Where we are talking at cross purposes is that you are talking legally, I am talking morally… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/51 "2005-12-07T16:00:14Z")
> [@Martiju](#): > > Again, it’s a fair point. However, I think it’s arguable whether you can really disentangle the men from the policy. In other words, I think that the effect of the retribution was national, but the aim personal (ie. not the motivation, but the action). > > Where we are talking at cross purposes is that you are talking legally, I am talking morally… True. But this entire thread arises from a legal proposition: that the Bush administration’s torture conduct violates criminal law, but that due to power and influence, no one will be prosecuted. My rebuttals give lie to that proposition. Now, I certainly agree that there are moral problems aplenty in this situation. If the thread had proposed that Bush’s conduct violates moral standards, I would not be objecting. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/52 "2005-12-07T16:01:07Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > If you guys can find a crime that Bush committed, then I’m all for at least entertaining the idea of prosecution. But violating U.N. treaties isn’t a crime on the individual level. Hmmm… Why rely on treaties, exactly? Aren’t there laws punishing torture already in place? I assume I can’t visit the US and torture whoever I feel like torturing. I assume guards in US jails or US police officers can be sentenced for torturing detainees or suspects. So, I assume that the same laws and punishmpents would apply to a CIA agent torturing a suspect, or anybody who ordered him to torture a suspect, up and including the president. So, what’s the relevance of a lack of laws punishing specifically the violation of a treaty? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/53 "2005-12-07T16:04:37Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Hmmm… Why rely on treaties, exactly? Aren’t there laws punishing torture already in place? I assume I can’t visit the US and torture whoever I feel like torturing. I assume guards in US jails or US police officers can be sentenced for torturing detainees or suspects. > > So, I assume that the same laws and punishmpents would apply to a CIA agent torturing a suspect, or anybody who ordered him to torture a suspect, up and including the president. So, what’s the relevance of a lack of laws punishing specifically the violation of a treaty? In general, these laws apply within the US. The law does not reach places outside US soil, such as Guantanamo, Cuba. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/54 "2005-12-07T16:12:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In general, these laws apply within the US. The law does not reach places outside US soil, such as Guantanamo, Cuba. Is this an undisputable doctrine? Can’t an american citizen be prosecuted by an american court for a crime (say a murder) commited in another country? ---
**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:** [December 7, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/55 "2005-12-07T16:16:19Z")
> [@ccwaterback](#): > > Actually I see the light now. There have been no laws broken when we torture our prisoners on war. Yes. That’s why all the defendants in the Abu Ghraib torture trials were acquited. Oh wait, they were mostly convicted. > [@](#): > > In fact, we should encourage this practice to be performed more often. Who, specifically, in this thread is advancing that argument? ---
**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:** [December 7, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/56 "2005-12-07T16:18:44Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Is this an undisputable doctrine? Can’t an american citizen be prosecuted by an american court for a crime (say a murder) commited in another country? If an American killed a someone in France, wouldn’t you expect the US to extradite the American to France for trial, assuming he had returned to the US? If he were still in France, would your country extradite him to the US for trial? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/57 "2005-12-07T16:20:25Z")
> [@someone447](#): > > I’m with Bricker on this one, even if you find a law, now you have to prove that Bush ordered it. Not that the CIA head did it without Bush’s consent, truthfully, it would end up the director at whatever place it took place(that was an awkward sentance). Then, guess what a term or two from now, the President will pardon him. It wouldn’t matter if it is a Democrat or a Republican, someone will pardon whoever would take the fall. It is almost impossible to pin this on Bush or his cabinet. Why would a Democrat pardon a criminal Republican operative? It would expose said Democrat to MUCH criticism from fellw Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/58 "2005-12-07T16:24:16Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Is this an undisputable doctrine? Can’t an american citizen be prosecuted by an american court for a crime (say a murder) commited in another country? How outraged would you be if an American was prosecuted upon his return to the US for using marijuana in Amsterdam, where it’s legal? As a general rule, no - a crime committed in another country cannot be prosecuted by the United States. There are special cases: an American diplomat can be prosecuted for crimes he commits in a host country, for instance. An American can be prosecuted for violating trade regulations anywhere the crime happens, because the whole point of trade regulations is to regulate conduct that happens outside the US borders - so the law specifically reaches everywhere, not just within our national borders. But the actions in Guantanamo do not appear to fall into any of the existing special cases carved out in the law. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/59 "2005-12-07T16:27:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True. But this entire thread arises from a legal proposition: that the Bush administration’s torture conduct violates criminal law, but that due to power and influence, no one will be prosecuted. My rebuttals give lie to that proposition. Now, I certainly agree that there are moral problems aplenty in this situation. If the thread had proposed that Bush’s conduct violates moral standards, I would not be objecting. ISTM that one of the things lawyers typically do for their clients is apply their knowledge of the law to defend the position of their client. ISTM that if you were inclined against the use of torture, you might assiduously look for some hook by which to hang those who practice it. Instead, you present an obstacle to such prosecution, claiming outright that there’s no law against torturing detainees, therefore there is no possible way to prosecute Bush & Minions. Frankly, I don’t think you are neutral on this issue. ---
**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:** [December 7, 2005, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374/60 "2005-12-07T16:33:09Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > ISTM that one of the things lawyers typically do for their clients is apply their knowledge of the law to defend the position of their client. ISTM that if you were inclined against the use of torture, you might assiduously look for some hook by which to hang those who practice it. Instead, you present an obstacle to such prosecution, claiming outright that there’s no law against torturing detainees, therefore there is no possible way to prosecute Bush & Minions. Frankly, I don’t think you are neutral on this issue. But those who are anti-Bush have failed to find that type of legal argument. Being neutral means not leaning in either direction. Your criticism is not that \*\*Bricker \*\*isn’t being neutral, but that he isn’t be adversarial. Big difference. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-anyone-from-the-bush-administration-be-tried/334374.md?page=4)