Bush/Cheney as War Criminals?

feioncastor · 02-01-08, 12:41 AM

I dont' know if this counts as a conspiracy, but I'm not sure if my thought process is solid.

Okay, it's been established that the US Government has used Waterboarding to interrogate enemy combatants. The only real question is whether or not the technique constitutes 'torture'.

Because the technique was used by agents of the USA, presumably with a green light from the Bush administration, then the Bush administration would be responsible for the issues arising from usage of the technique.

Up to this point, no one in the Bush Department of Justice has come forward and officially stated that Waterboarding is torture. In 2004, acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin underwent the procedure and determine that waterboarding would be torture, unless performed under certain circumstances. Levin was forced out of the DoJ when Alberto Gonzales took over as Attorney General.

With Gonzales gone, some had hoped that the new AG Mike Mukasey would give a definitive answer as to whether or not the Bush administration had allowed the use of torture.

But Mukasey hasn't really said one way or another about the legality of waterboarding. Interrogators have stopped using Waterboarding at this point, but they did use it more than once.

As a Republican Presidential Candidate, Senator John McCain has stated that Waterboarding is torture. If he were President, it's logical to assume that his Attorney General would take on that position. If, in the future, it is definitely determined that Waterboarding is torture, would that make President Bush and his crew all guilty of a crime against humanity? Or would the ex-post facto protection prevent any criminal prosecution? Or what if AG Mukasey came forward tomorrow and announced that Waterboarding was torture, would that make President Bush a criminal for allowing the use of torture by people representing the USA?

I'm not sure if I'm putting this together properly. Some clarification would be cool.

Pull My Finger · 02-01-08, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by feioncastor

I dont' know if this counts as a conspiracy, but I'm not sure if my thought process is solid.

Okay, it's been established that the US Government has used Waterboarding to interrogate enemy combatants. The only real question is whether or not the technique constitutes 'torture'.

Because the technique was used by agents of the USA, presumably with a green light from the Bush administration, then the Bush administration would be responsible for the issues arising from usage of the technique.

Up to this point, no one in the Bush Department of Justice has come forward and officially stated that Waterboarding is torture. In 2004, acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin underwent the procedure and determine that waterboarding would be torture, unless performed under certain circumstances. Levin was forced out of the DoJ when Alberto Gonzales took over as Attorney General.

With Gonzales gone, some had hoped that the new AG Mike Mukasey would give a definitive answer as to whether or not the Bush administration had allowed the use of torture.

But Mukasey hasn't really said one way or another about the legality of waterboarding. Interrogators have stopped using Waterboarding at this point, but they did use it more than once.

As a Republican Presidential Candidate, Senator John McCain has stated that Waterboarding is torture. If he were President, it's logical to assume that his Attorney General would take on that position. If, in the future, it is definitely determined that Waterboarding is torture, would that make President Bush and his crew all guilty of a crime against humanity? Or would the ex-post facto protection prevent any criminal prosecution? Or what if AG Mukasey came forward tomorrow and announced that Waterboarding was torture, would that make President Bush a criminal for allowing the use of torture by people representing the USA?

I'm not sure if I'm putting this together properly. Some clarification would be cool.

The US military considers waterboarding torture, and has made it illegal for US military personnel to perform it.

The CIA is another story…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Legality

Quote:

International law

All countries that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subjected to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition, and as such there exists no legal exception under this treaty. .., "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."United States
In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Yukio Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor. [13]

In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, [56] and critics of waterboarding draw parallels between the two techniques, citing the similar usage of water on the subject.

On September 6, 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense ... prohibits the use of waterboarding by U.S. military personnel. ... The revised manual applies only to U.S. military personnel, and as such does not apply to the practices of the CIA. [57] However, under international law, violators of the laws of war are criminally liable under the command responsibility, and could still be prosecuted for war crimes. [58]

Under international law waterboarders could still be prosecuted.

Peace

Pull My Finger · 02-01-08, 08:59 AM

Welcome to DP, BTW...

feioncastor · 02-01-08, 12:07 PM

Would President Bush be held criminally or legally responsible if the CIA used techniques that were revealed to be torture? Like, if Attorney General Mukasey were to come out today and say that waterboarding is torture.

bhkad · 02-01-08, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by feioncastor

Would President Bush be held criminally or legally responsible if the CIA used techniques that were revealed to be torture? Like, if Attorney General Mukasey were to come out today and say that waterboarding is torture.

Hold your breath while waiting for anyone of this administration to be tried as war criminals.

Or, better yet, dunk your own head under water.

This is a fantasy of those who hate Bush beyond all reason.

Your efforts will come to nothing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

Now, do something good for America and enlist in the military or join the Peace Corps or something unridiculous like that.

You owe Bush a deep debt of gratitude. Apply your analytical skills to figuring out what you have to be grateful for.

aegyptos · 02-01-08, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by feioncastor

Would President Bush be held criminally or legally responsible if the CIA used techniques that were revealed to be torture? Like, if Attorney General Mukasey were to come out today and say that waterboarding is torture.

Just wondering, who would prosecute a case like this?

feioncastor · 02-01-08, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aegyptos

Just wondering, who would prosecute a case like this?

I don't know. I'm genuinely asking. I'm not being critical or trying to make a point. I'm simply curious if something like this could go down.

Quote:

Hold your breath while waiting for anyone of this administration to be tried as war criminals.

Or, better yet, dunk your own head under water.

This is a fantasy of those who hate Bush beyond all reason.

Your efforts will come to nothing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

Nothing.

Now, do something good for America and enlist in the military or join the Peace Corps or something unridiculous like that.

You owe Bush a deep debt of gratitude. Apply your analytical skills to figuring out what you have to be grateful for.

Whoa! I know my efforts will come to nothing. As a matter of fact, I'm not really putting forth any effort to get the President tried for War Crimes.

Rather, I was asking people here if he could be tried, and for a little clarification. Many of the people I see everyday (friends, co-workers, etc.) have broken down the situation in the way that I broke it down. I'm simply asking if there's any merit to that particular line of thinking.

I feel like I should inform you that I very well may be in the US Military. I'm not at this point, but I'm planning to join the Air Force very soon, once I get some personal affairs in order.

And I don't despise President Bush, as is so trendy amongst college students and the media. I think Bush has made some awful choices at times, but still, they're all decisions that I'm glad I'll never have to make. I do disagree with a lot of his ideas about my country and its place in the world, but I'm hardly qualified to assess something as important as that issue, considering I have only a little bit of college education and I know very little about the finer details of goings-on throughout the world.

Even apart from Bush's record as the President, I'd never claim to hate the guy because I don't know him. I do know that he is a dedicated family man, which I respect a great deal. I also know that even if you have rich parents, you can't get law degrees from ivy league schools without working your butt off, so I give him credit for that. Furthermore, the majority of Americans thought he did a fine job between 2000 and 2004 that they decided to re-elect him, so he can't be all bad. There's just no way that so many Americans are just crazy. Some of them are, yes, but most of them voted for him for well-thought reasons.

aegyptos · 02-01-08, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by feioncastor

Whoa! I know my efforts will come to nothing. As a matter of fact, I'm not really putting forth any effort to get the President tried for War Crimes.

Rather, I was asking people here if he could be tried, and for a little clarification.

No, he can't be tried in the Unted States. Ex post facto law is prohibited by Article 1 of the US Constitution. It's theoretically possible that he could be tried in a European court ex post facto for violating international law, assuming that waterboarding is in fact, torture. Its hard to see how a European court would have any jurisdiction even if Bush or Cheney were to fall into their hands. Remember General Pinochet's case before a Spanish court? That's why I asked you who might prosecute the case.

Billo_Really · 02-01-08, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by feioncastor

I don't know. I'm genuinely asking. I'm not being critical or trying to make a point. I'm simply curious if something like this could go down.

Whoa! I know my efforts will come to nothing. As a matter of fact, I'm not really putting forth any effort to get the President tried for War Crimes.

Rather, I was asking people here if he could be tried, and for a little clarification. Many of the people I see everyday (friends, co-workers, etc.) have broken down the situation in the way that I broke it down. I'm simply asking if there's any merit to that particular line of thinking.

I feel like I should inform you that I very well may be in the US Military. I'm not at this point, but I'm planning to join the Air Force very soon, once I get some personal affairs in order.

And I don't despise President Bush, as is so trendy amongst college students and the media. I think Bush has made some awful choices at times, but still, they're all decisions that I'm glad I'll never have to make. I do disagree with a lot of his ideas about my country and its place in the world, but I'm hardly qualified to assess something as important as that issue, considering I have only a little bit of college education and I know very little about the finer details of goings-on throughout the world.

Even apart from Bush's record as the President, I'd never claim to hate the guy because I don't know him. I do know that he is a dedicated family man, which I respect a great deal. I also know that even if you have rich parents, you can't get law degrees from ivy league schools without working your butt off, so I give him credit for that. Furthermore, the majority of Americans thought he did a fine job between 2000 and 2004 that they decided to re-elect him, so he can't be all bad. There's just no way that so many Americans are just crazy. Some of them are, yes, but most of them voted for him for well-thought reasons.

Welcome to Debate Politics!

Yes, Bush/Cheney should be charged with war crimes.

feioncastor · 02-04-08, 01:08 AM

Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone! It's cool to be welcomed by people even though we probably will end up disagreeing on serious issues in the future, LOL.