Great post, this demonstrates precisely why international law is not substantive criminal law. Trying to apply international law to individuals isn’t the best idea. International law was written to govern nations. And nations can’t be imprisoned or tried and convicted of a crime.
International law basically assumes that when a nation violates it, the doctrine of collective security will step in to correct that violation. The international community is expected to take one of many different uptions they have, sanctions, various punitive diplomatic actions (forcing a government to accept observers, forcing a government to modify itself), various forms of military action (a police action, outright invasion etc.)
The one exception is the Uniform Code of Military Justice ties itself to the treaties on warfare that the United States has signed. If you read the UCMJ you will be made aware that if it’s prohibited under any of the treaties that the United States is signatory to, then it is a crime within the military.
But no one in Bush’s administration are members of the United States military. And while Bush is the C-n-C, the President does not fall under the UCMJ.
With reguards to the proposition of other countries trying Bush and his merry men for crimes against humanity (or whatever other fantasy charges are board du jour): Are there even any nations making noises out there about trying Bush et al to fulfill this fantasy? Which nations would be inclined to even attempt this? What evidence would they be able to get as far as written authorizations and such…assuming the US government chose not to participate? If they couldn’t get said evidence what would they base their charges on exactly…unless they could find a credible high level Bush official who would come to their country and testify under oath. If they couldn’t get one of those (not very likely they could I wouldn’t think) then what would their evidence be? Circumstantial? And finally, what penalty would be assessed against Bush and the administration for these crimes?
Really this is just a left wing (and perhaps Euro) wet dream of seeing Bush et al in chains being marched off to the dark cells. Does ‘snowballs chance in hell’ ring any bells?
Translation : Might makes right. If Bush decides he wants to start raping pretty foreign diplomats, they and their governments should just take it; he’s Bush, which means he has no limits. He can do anything to anyone because he controls more nukes and guns, and the rest of the world should just lie down and die for him.
Would you support the passage of law that would give specific penalties for anyone (up to and including the President) who orders, or engages in torture?
If Bush raped a diplomat that would be a violation of U.S. law. He would be impeached and removed from office within the week and probably given a jail term following that.
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.
I’m unsure how you got this translation from what I said. Myself, I’d say the translation for what I wrote is something like ‘reality…try living in the real world sometime’. Seriously…I asked some questions, and the best you can come back with is ‘Might makes right’??
As for the ‘Bush has no limits’ thing…its complete bullshit. Of COURSE he has limits. The US has limits too. He isn’t the king and he can’t do whatever he likes…he has to work within the system. The point is that just because you may not like what Bush and the US has done, and just because other nations out there may not like it, this doesn’t necessarily translate into Bush having done something illegal. If Bush HAS done something illegal as defined by US law then there certainly are things that can be done to him…or too members of his administration. Its total horseshit to say that Bush and all his merry men are immune from prosecution. The problem is I’ve yet to see any actual data about what Bush would be charged WITH in a real, legal sense. Obviously the Democrats and others who are against the current administration haven’t latched on to anything yet either…or else we’d be going through Watergate again.
On the international front its even more slippery. What would the charges be exactly? Where would the evidence come from? Under what authority would Bush et al be charged? What specific body of law would be in play? What are the exact punishments? How would they be enforced?
IANAL obviously. So…educate me. What specific laws has Bush and/or the Administration broken…either US or international? Or, what specific laws do you THINK he’s broken if you don’t have solid evidence? Realistically, even in an ideal world, what kind of case would you have if you could try him in your ideal setting (assuming a fair and realitively unbiased trial)?
You would then have to prove that Bush ordered or engaged in torture. As obvious as it seems to the foam-at-the-mouth Bush haters, it would be a very hard thing to do.
“I - did - not - engage - in - torture - relations - with - that - young - fellow; Mr. Mo- Mu - Meh … with that young fellow.”
A pile of chutzpah, smothered in irony sauce - it’s what’s for dinner!
Right. The legal system can only change if someone changes it with a “landmark decision”. Since the vast majority of decisions are based on precedent, that means that the legal system is about 70 bajillion years behind reality. So when you get legal types going “what are you going to charge him with?” and “under what precedent?” and other such stuff, you’re seeing people lie about the white elephant in the room, knowing that they’re backed up by a legal system that has no mechanism for perceiving that there is, indeed, a white elephant in the room. Not only that, if some maverick tries to assert that there is a white elephant in the room, they are made to look foolish with the “what white elephant?” argument.
Are you saying that people who believe the US has engaged in torture are having fantasies? If so, have another glass of kool-aid – you and Condoleeza Rice are obviously enjoying the hell out of it!
Great Britain, should they ever get a Prime Minister with balls. Maybe Belgium. Certainly, France. Russia, China. North Korea, Libya, Iran … oh, the list of nations full of citizens that would enjoy trying Bush for war crimes is LOOOOOONG. That list may include the US someday. Heck, I’m there already!
Maybe they could do a few "renditions.’ I hear it’s all the rage among rogue nations.
Testimony of victims, eyewitnesses, maybe a few secret prisons could be subject to forensics …
Death or a very long jail sentence would work for me.
Right now it’s a very unlikely thing, but you know, circumstances change, xtisme.
I had noticed that, too. All our “legal” scholars on this thread are saying Bush and his evil minions can get away with torture. “It’s just outside the scope of our laws, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”
I believe the “torture is not so bad” defense isn’t lurking just around the corner.
I think the UN has a strict policy of not allowing leaders of countries that have known torture policies to participate in the secret santa program. Beyond that no idea.
Well, I can cite the specific law that President Bush would be violating by raping foreign diplomats. If he committed the act in Virginia, he’d be in violation of Va Code § 18.2-61, the penalty for which is confinement in a state correctional facility for life or for any term not less than five years.
Now, if you contend that the President should be tried, convicted, and imprisoned for torture, it seems fair to require you to point out what law he’d be tried under.
Don’t you think?
I think it’s highly immoral to try someone for something that isn’t a crime. If someone invented a new drug, one that had the same effects as heroin, and the government arrested people for selling it, their defense would be that this new drug is not on any prohibited list, and it’s perfectly legal to sell it. If the government said, “Well, MORALLY, it’s the same as heroin, so we’re going to convict you anyway,” I assume you’d be outraged.
And rightly so. One of the fundamental tenets of our law is that people are given fair notice of what acts are prohibited, and what penalties exist for violations. We rightly abhor the idea of ex post facto laws, because the idea that we could be convicted for an act which was not illegal at the time we did it is repellent to us. Our whole system is geared towards the idea that in order to punish someone for a criminal act, that act must be defined in the law as criminal FIRST.
So stop this blabbering about how “legal arguments” ignore the “moral.” This thread is a legal argument. It’s saying that Bush and his “friends” won’t be tried and convicted for torture because they are “above the law”. I’m pointing out that THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF LAW involved.
If you wish to start a thread bemoaning how immoral torture is, please go right ahead. But in a thread that claims the president should be convicted of a crime for his torturing activities, it’s very relevant to ask what the crime is.
That’s funny, I could have sworn that in some distant time, someone claimed that the violation of a UN resolution was enough to force us into invading a foreign soverienty.
Ah, but a treaty is different from a resolution, no doubt…
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.
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.
