Comments on: Activist judges and the military lawyers who love them

Activist judges and the military lawyers who love them

kittyprecious — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:16:19 -0800

By: mr.curmudgeon

mr.curmudgeon — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:26:29 -0800

Next up: War crimes trials for Bush and company?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:28:03 -0800

(or an alternate title of JAG Kicks Dubya's Ass) It's nice to see some sanity now and again instead of the steady stream of nuthouse drivel being "justified" by the good hair network.

By: pracowity

pracowity — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:32:30 -0800

If Bush were convicted of war crimes (entirely theoretically, of course -- I'm sure he'll he retired into luxury no matter what happens), could he (again, theoretically) get the death penalty? Cause that would be (actually, not just theoretically) amusing.

By: BeerGrin

BeerGrin — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:40:15 -0800

A shred of sanity at long last.

By: dansdata

dansdata — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:43:20 -0800

Yes, Bush could indeed get death if convicted of committing crimes against peace and planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression. And that's before you even get to the "war crimes". This has, famously, happened before. Of course, in the real world high-ranking politicians only get tried for their war crimes by the winners of wars that the criminals lost, and it is unlikely that whatever collection of lunatics and murderers ends up coming to power in Iraq will conquer the USA and put the USA's lunatics and murderers on trial. (Plus Blair. And Howard, while they're at it.) But, as you say, we can dream.

By: jellicle

jellicle — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:45:55 -0800

Does this include the ghost detainees, who the U.S. won't admit to holding and doesn't report to the Red Cross? (Existence of these was publically admitted by the U.S. military in 2004.) Does it include the ones at prison camps in eastern Europe? (Denied by the U.S., though the evidence is overwhelming.) How about the ones held in Afghanistan and Iraq? (Publically acknowledged.) How about the ones held by the CIA, not the DoD? That the U.S. is engaged in systematic, government-approved torture is not deniable. Re: war crimes: please remember that "Waging aggressive war" is a war crime in itself. Torturing prisoners to death is also a war crime, but it's not even necessary to prove that one, when you've got the "waging aggressive war" one staring you in the face. All that is necessary is for someone to have the balls to arrest Bush.

By: parmanparman

parmanparman — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:04:43 -0800

I don't think that prosecution of Bush, Blair and Howard is possible unless there were a sea change in the governments in all three countries. Don't forget that Eden was never formally punished for the debacle that was the Suez War. I am certain that what will happen is that some anti-war leader will come along who will mention something along the lines of a withdrawal from Iraq and then continue to secretly bomb there. That person will eventually be implicated in some scandal and resign or be impeached. Does this sound familiar. I bet a lot of people reading this voted for Nixon to end the war in Viet Nam.

By: schoolgirl report

schoolgirl report — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:12:16 -0800

As a minor point of pride, Admiral Hutson is currently the Dean of my alma mater. He's been all over this issue, and the news, for quite some time.

By: rzklkng

rzklkng — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:15:11 -0800

We so need to get over the wet dream of impeaching Bush, and get on with the dream of impeaching Cheney. It is so much more likely, supported by facts, sell-able to all of the GOP, pallatable to the media, and desirable by Bush, the Republican machinery, and the conservative base. He would make a convincing scapegoat (although he is actually the most guilty party). It's his hands which are on all the cookie jars, not Bush's.

By: rzklkng

rzklkng — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:16:23 -0800

And I mean impeaching or war-crimes indictments, etc. and other miscellaneous legal proceedings. I suspect that his entire life post-presidency will be spent dealing with various civil lawsuits, provided citizens can sue him for his actions.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:20:49 -0800

And where would these war crimes trials be held? Under what law? And who is going to arrest him? It's not a matter of balls, it's a matter of law. No one has the authority to arrest Bush except, wait for the irony, an invading outside force waging a war of aggression identical to the one waged in Iraq. Bush did not break any U.S. law, therefore the cops can't arrest him. The military can't arrest him because the military can't arrest anyone, and any police force anywhere else on the planet doesn't have jurisdiction. There is no U.N. police force because, apart from other reasons, the U.N. isn't a government. And while we are at it, shouldn't you be calling for the arrest of China's premier as well? And maybe the president and prime minister of pretty much every country on earth? All that this war has proved (to americans) is that the U.S. isn't better than any other country. It certainly hasn't proved that we are worse.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:23:23 -0800

Nice to see. But it’s not going to bring justice for the one’s who committed suicide. That’d be nice to see too.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:27:04 -0800

Presumably this is something that was handed down from the White House since The Pentagon is part of the Executive.

By: ilsa

ilsa — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:52:46 -0800

And who is going to arrest him? It's not a matter of balls, it's a matter of law. I suppose we could impeach him and have him removed from office. Then he is no longer leader of a sovereign nation, and can therefore be arrested just like any other criminal. Right? Of course to impeach him means either getting the GOP to throw him under the buss, or somehow managing to get a not-Republican majority in both houses of Congress in the fall elections. Hmm, which is more likely, a) conquered by invading army, b) Republicans impeaching Bush, or c) turnover of Congress? I don't think Vegas is taking odds on this one.

By: sergeant sandwich

sergeant sandwich — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:07:20 -0800

Next up: War crimes trials for Bush and company? you know, if we're gonna get start handing out indictments at the hague, i think there might be some bigger fish to fry at the moment.

By: BillyElmore

BillyElmore — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:28:21 -0800

The Rule of Law: If Bill Clinton lies about oral sex. Duh!

By: jmgorman

jmgorman — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:12:23 -0800

I was under the impression that treaties, once signed, became U.S. law. Therefore, Bush is in contravention of U.S. law.

By: illovich

illovich — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:27:54 -0800

I'm certainly not an expert, but as Commander in Chief I would think that Bush could be relieved of command and detained by the Military and court-martialed^. On the other hand, I would assume that there's some sort of provision making this impossible to prevent Coup d'Etat. It's kind of moot because it will never happen unless Bush announced a suspension of the Constitution and the USA was eventually defeated in a war waged against us by the rest of the world or some equally unlikely scenario. No President, not even President Nader would allow that to happen to a former President. The best you can hope for is that he'll be impeached, which probably won't happen either. He will simply stop being President at the end of his term, in all likelihood.

By: bshort

bshort — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:42:09 -0800

I'm certainly not an expert, but as Commander in Chief I would think that Bush could be relieved of command and detained by the Military and court-martialed No. He couldn't (unless you're talking about a coup, which is not going to be a constitutional move) since the president is a civilian that commands the US military rather than a member of the US military.

By: kaemaril

kaemaril — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:57:16 -0800

Pastabagel : Actually, I believe it's ilegal under U.S federal law to commit a war crime... I'd wiki/google it, but I'm going out in a couple of mins :) Um ... Isn't it The Warcrimes Act? Isn't that what Gonzales was worried about when he wrote his (in)famous memo suggesting that the President had the authority to 'suspend' Geneva? Basically 'you'd better do something about this, or we could be prosecuted under our own laws'?

By: kaemaril

kaemaril — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:04:27 -0800

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 § 2441. War crimes (a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. (b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act). (c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct— (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party; (2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907; (3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or (4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians. That was just on a quick google, haven't time for anything more detailed :)

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:11:55 -0800

kaemaril - thnks for the info, I didn't know it extended to nationals as well as military personnel. I see words like "grave breach" (not just "breach"), and "willfully" and I'm thinking it doesn't apply. But...

By: illovich

illovich — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:21:51 -0800

According to this guy, the President can be arrested just like any one else, although it would probably be interesting for the arresting officer to get through the Secret Service, as he notes.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:46:02 -0800

If bush had managed to get one moure suprime court nominee through this wouldn't have happened.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:50:02 -0800

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:57:28 -0800

I bet Colombo could nail him. “Ahh, just one more thing Mr. President...” he even nailed Johnny Cash.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:29:38 -0800

Smedleyman: I bet Colombo could nail him. “Ahh, just one more thing Mr. President...” he even nailed Johnny Cash. That is, simultaneously, my favorite haiku and favorite inspiration for slash fiction of the day.

By: bardic

bardic — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:30:46 -0800

I share in the sense of victory over an out-of-control Executive branch and a slap on the wrist to a lapdog Legislative one, but ya know what's really good about this decision, and hopefully the notion that the US should use courts (domestic, foreign, and international) as tools rather than ignore them entirely? It's that maybe we can actually begin to systematically locate, capture, and try religiously motivated asshats who want to wipe out major swaths of a given country's population. Of course, see my unsurprised face if the Bush junta just goes deeper down the rabbithole and tries to hide everything from the SCOTUS and Congress. But at least people are starting to realize what a uniquely corrupt and arrogant regime this White House has become. And that further malfeasance on their part deserves nothing less than, yes Virginia, impeachment.

By: lodurr

lodurr — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:43:24 -0800

Pastabagel: No one has the authority to arrest Bush... You seem to be confusing authority with either opportunity or evidence and cause. Any American law enforcement officer has the authority to arrest President Bush. What's more problematic is getting evidence to provide cause; and then, once that happens, to get an opportunity. That he "couldn't get arrested" in this berg has much more to do with custom than law. Just sayin'.

By: jlub

jlub — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:45:10 -0800

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:32:06 -0800

Sure, they can sue Paula Jones. Seems kind of mean-spirited at this point, though.

By: Kickstart70

Kickstart70 — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:42:33 -0800

Ok, cortex, that was funny, I have to admit. :) But, speaking as a Canadian who knows little on this subject, why can't American citizens sue the president? From what I can see from here, taxpayers have grounds for "breach of faith" lawsuits for misuse of their tax dollars for the past 100 years or so.

By: Decani

Decani — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:52:40 -0800

And who is going to arrest him? It's not a matter of balls, it's a matter of law. No one has the authority to arrest Bush except, wait for the irony, an invading outside force waging a war of aggression identical to the one waged in Iraq. Sadly true. So what to do about obvious war criminals who are militarily untouchable? Assassination is the usual answer, of course. Not that anything so direct would happen in today's America, of course.

By: Krrrlson

Krrrlson — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:27:55 -0800

I love how bloodthirsty all these war opponents are.

By: ClaudiaCenter

ClaudiaCenter — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:36:01 -0800

Pentagon memo (with commentary). http://www.slate.com/id/2145592/entry/0/

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:25:08 -0800

"The very obvious loophole is what will happen to detainees outside of U.S. military custody--as in CIA custody, such as the so-called "black sites," where Geneva is a sick joke. ... "

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:42:38 -0800

I love how bloodthirsty all these war opponents are. posted by Krrrlson I don't love how bloodthirsty all these war proponents are. There, fixed it for you.

By: Decani

Decani — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:34:21 -0800

I love how bloodthirsty all these war opponents are. Oh yeah, we're the absolute pits when it comes to blood. Think before you try to be a fucking smartarse, you damned idiot. Shame on you for such a lazy, blinkered, witless comment. Oppose the people who are actually spilling blood or else for Christ's sake zip it and stop embarrassing yourself.

By: CwgrlUp

CwgrlUp — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:23:56 -0800

I find it difficult for us to buy in to the notion, ‘let’s just trust the president’s judgment,’ ’’ Mr. Biden said. “God love him, his judgment has been terrible." *snort* That one made me chuckle. You have to wonder how long you can detain people while having no proof of their wrongdoing. If they could prove something I'd bet they'd have hustled to move them on through the legal system just so Bush could jump on tv and say "Look A-MUR-ica, I caught one!! See I told you sending all those troops was for a good reason!'