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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.