On the Chris Matthews Show this morning, The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan predicted that three Bush Administration officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, might be tried as War Criminals, if they left the United States.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/06/t...-war-criminals/

questions for debate:

1. Do you agree with Sullivan’s prediction?

2. Do you think certain Bush Administration figures should be indicted and tried?

3. If this actually happened, what do you think the response of the Bush Administration (or an Obama, McCain or Clinton Administration would or should be?

1. Do you agree with Sullivan’s prediction?

I seriously doubt it- did anyone charge Reagan with war crimes? Ollie North? heck, they directly aided an entire organization made up of psychopathic pedophilic terrorists- I don't recall anyone arresting them eh?

2. Do you think certain Bush Administration figures should be indicted and tried?

I think it is pretty obvious, of course. I mean, damn, we are talking a regime that "outsourced" torture, plus condoned torture, oh crap, this list is too long.

America has been pretty well insulated from having to pay for our misdeeds, at least, our leaders have anyway.

3. If this actually happened, what do you think the response of the Bush Administration (or an Obama, McCain or Clinton Administration would or should be?

Well, gee, I guess since we are dreaming here- if they were ethical, moral people, they would have turned them over already- correct?

Bush would invade Canada probably, after mistaking Canada for Britain, even though it was Italy that arrested them. At first, he would be all about arresting the "prez" of Italy. Then he would lose interest, and attack Canada, mistaking it for Britain. Then he would produce fake documents giving evidence that Canada planned to invade first. McCain would yell and scream and flip flop a couple times before realizing he doesn't know anything about the economy. Then he would write a letter asking some regulatory agency to back off on GW. Obama would probably turn over the whole administration once someone produces some evidence.

Ridiculous and – never happen

2

For what? Iraq? Let try the UN for incompetence and corruption over Iraq. That would be a good start. Then we can move on to 800,000 dead in Ruwanda and go from there.

1. Do you agree with Sullivan’s prediction?

Uh, no. First off, which country is going to have enough guts to snatch a (formerly) high ranking US figure?

2. Do you think certain Bush Administration figures should be indicted and tried?

Nobody has proved that these figures have violated US law, let alone international law. US law is just as strict and uses the same language as international law. So get some lawyers together and indict them here.

The US's memo from 2002 shows the thought process of the Adminstration. What constitutes "torture" domestically or internationally is the intentional infliction of "severe" pain. Not some pain, but severe pain.

Now, we may dispute the definitions, but the reasoning is there.

3. If this actually happened, what do you think the response of the Bush Administration (or an Obama, McCain or Clinton Administration would or should be?

The US government would protect its officials. If a Democrat is in office, I'd expect they would move just as swiftly to protect US citizens from an international torch carrying mob as a Republican administration would. I doubt it would be any type of military response, but an embargo for the offending countries would be almost a certainty.

In general, I think you provided a well thoughtout post Amlord.

The transcript from Sunday's The Chris Matthews Show is now available.

Matthews himself seemed to register some disbelief with his response.


http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/html/t...cript/index.php

Sullivan seems to be basing his opinion on this, from The Atlantic


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...eld-in-par.html

If the French ever arrest Rumsfeld, we might have to go back to "freedom fries"

As I've said before, I once held a great deal of respect for Andrew Sullivan. The war has dropped him off the deep end.

Who in France is going to be brave enough to "arrest" Don Rumsfeld and try him for war crimes. You might speculate that they could do it, but the only thing we need to be concerned about is that they won't do it, regardless of the guilt or innocence question.

French prosecutors threw out that case back in November

Of course, what is stated above isn't entirely right. Most defendants in war crimes trials were acting on behalf of one State or another and that hasn’t been considered a retroactive case for future immunity. Pinochet case-in-point.

The real reason the case was thrown out (and likely any future on would be as well) is because the political costs of using universal jurisdiction to prosecute American officials (under present circumstances) are too high. That's not just true of American officials, it would be equally true of officials throughout most of the world...unless there is a crime against humanity along the lines of genocide, the cost of trying officials for abuse cases just opens the door to an endless sting of politically motivated prosecutions. Happened in Belgium when they passed their universal jurisdiction law.