The crimes of George W. Bush
For over eight years, George W. Bush and a handful of his close associates engaged in a variety of behavior that is defined as criminal under international and domestic law.
These included violations of the laws of war as set down in the Geneva Conventions and international legal precedent (including War Crimes tribunals such as those that took place in Nuremburg, Germany), violations of domestic law, and violations of the articles and amendments contained in the Constitution of the United States of America.
It is known, for example, that Mr. Bush, his cabinet members, and his officers in the Executive Branch ordered the preemptive use of force against Iraq in 2003 which they had been planning for nearly two years, and had been contemplated by their intellectual supporters since the late 1990s (otherwise known as the “Project for the New American Century“). This type of pre-meditated, aggressive warfare is defined by international law as the “supreme international crime” and an “evil thing”. Yet Mr. Bush and his administration engaged in this crime.
It is known that Mr. Bush, his cabinet members, and his officers in the Executive Branch authorized the wiretapping of electronic communications in the United States with collaboration from nearly every major telecommunications company, in contravention of federal law and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1789.
It is known that Mr. Bush, his cabinet members, and his officers in the Executive Branch authorized the use of torture in interrogating alleged enemy combatants — a violation of the Geneva Conventions, the laws of war, and the domestic laws of the United States. In fact, American law, as codified in the War Crimes Statute, requires a sentence of capital punishment in cases where any such torture leads to death.
It is known that Mr. Bush, his cabinet members, and his officers in the Executive Branch failed to take responsibility in their response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and thus failed in their most basic duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United States to protect its citizens.
Today, there is talk that these crimes, and any other crimes committed during the presidency of George W. Bush, should be ignored and forgotten. Dahlia Lithwick points out in the New York Times that the near-universal consensus from anyone with even just a little bit of power — in government or in the flattering media — is that it would be better to pretend as if these crimes never happened. Even Deepak Chopra, who normally confines himself to new-age spiritual advice, has issued a statement that President Obama should forego prosecuting administration officials because ignorance of the criminal past would be “better than the stark truth.”
This perspective is ironic in light of the fact that America is the world’s leader in jailing its citizens — more than Russia, more than China, more than Iran, more than Saudi Arabia. Every day, thousands of people are jailed in this country for minor, non-violent offenses, often for little more than possession of an illegal drug, at a cost of more than $55 billion a year.
But when it comes time to talk about the crimes of the utmost severity, crimes that affect the very freedoms in society that we are taught to cherish — there is nothing heard other than a thundering and shameful silence. Instead, what is advocated is a perverse form of mercy which would be ridiculed by any judge at any sentencing hearing for any lesser crime.
One of Barack Obama’s first act as President was overturning the Bush-era rules on torture. He did so with a simple stroke of a pen. This, no doubt, was a victory for human rights. But it was also a chilling reminder that because of the actions taken by George W. Bush and his administration, America’s most cherished liberties and freedoms now depend on the person occupying the office of President. A single signature on a single piece of paper can overturn decades or even centuries of hard-won freedoms. That is a power that no single person should ever have. Yet this is a consequence of the Bush-era abuses.
For almost 800 years, since the signing of the Magna Carta, Anglo-American jurisprudence has taken the position that there is no person, not even a king, who can stand above the law. And as the Founding Fathers made clear when they rebelled from that very king, the President of the United States can never act outside the confines of the law and the four corners of the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, it is respect for law and respect for the Constitution which compels an inquiry into the behavior of the powerful. Otherwise, accountability becomes a word without meaning, and the “rule of law” a phrase without life.
One of the most difficult lessons in life is the lesson of humility. No one is perfect, and sometimes people make mistakes. But the mistake is never a sin. Mistakes are human. Rather, the sin is the refusal to admit that a mistake was made at all. That is the greatest sin, because the mistake is never corrected. It becomes a perpetual stain on the fabric of one’s existence.
Before the moment is lost, before history is forgotten, before history is repeated: the crimes of President Bush must be investigated. They must be brought to light. A record must be created, and if there is evidence of crimes, indictments must issue. The mistake must be admitted, and rectified. The Constitution requires it, and justice demands it. Liberty is won over many centuries, but it can be lost in a nighttime. If America is truly interested in change, then it must require accountability from those who have wronged the nation and its laws.
6 Responses to “The crimes of George W. Bush”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
Tags
Blogroll
You haven’t read article 3 of the Geneva Convention I see. This article details the treatment of “Prisoners of War” from, and this is the point you missed, nations that have declared mutual war. There is NOTHING that covers the treatment of “enemy combatants.”
You also mention rights and provisions granted in the Constitution. Liberals NEED to grasp this concept. The United States Constitution provieds RIGHTS and prividlegs to CITIZENS. People from another country are not protected in the same manner.
Gibby,
the Supreme Court has already considered your argument and rejected it. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), the Court held that treatment of so called “unlawful combatants” in Guantanamo Bay violated Article III of the Geneva Conventions. The Court correctly noted that parties to the Geneva Conventions must abide by its “minimal” obligations — this is known as Common Article 3. The government argued, unsuccessfully, that Common Article 3 did not govern against al Queda for the reason you suggested, that al Qaeda was not a signatory to the conventions. The Court held that Common Article 3 applies to any person, signatory or non signatory:
“Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory “Power” who are involved in a conflict “in the territory of” a signatory.”
I’m also afraid that your reading of the Constitution related to citizenship ignores the plain text. The Bill of Rights, a document I hold in very high regard, uses the term “person” and not “CITIZENS,” as you have written in bold. Here is the opening text of the fifth amendment, for example:
“No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;”
Similarly, any “accused” (under the sixth amendment) has a right to counsel — there is simply no mention of “citizenship” within those contexts.
I wonder why any person would favor a government that restricts freedom as opposed to one that favors it. Why do you argue that our government should restrict freedom? Isn’t hatred of freedom the alleged motivating influence behind America’s terrorist enemies? Are you saying you agree with them?
Best,
I.C.
I would have to say that the ICJ and not the US supreme court is the final answer on what does and does not violate the Geneva Convention. If The ICJ chooses to Bring Charges against Bush, then so be it.
Your basic arguement about whether the Constitution applies to a ‘person’ or a ‘citizen’ is interesting.
Using your assumption, the United States government could convene a Grand Jury and present charges against a person in Melbourne, Australia and then in some manner relocate them to the U.S. and imprison them.
The 5th amendment you quoted, “.. in service during a time of War of a public danger” would still apply to Guantanamo Bay detainees even under your lenient interpretation.
I maintain that The Founding Fathers, understood implicitly that they were drafting the rules of governance for the newly established United Staes of America and the protections it’s citizens (and we’ll include legal residents even though that wasn’t an issue in 1778) were to be afforded. They had no reason to say citizen as it was implied in everything they did. They were not determining rights of Canadians, anyone in Europe, Asia or anywhere else. They were refering only to themselves and those that would follow after.
The Magna Carta did not limit the powers of Sultans in Persia.It did not apply to The Emporers of Japan or China. Documents are localized and apply strictly to the persons involved or who choose to make it applicable to themselves.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I believe the detainees in Gitmo are being held in ways that violate their Human Rights and I do not agree with their treatment.
I simply don’t like the misnomers like “war crimes” applied with reckless blaise. While Bush may have imprisoned people found underarms against U.S. soldiers in foreign nations, Obama plans to use “Prolonged Detention” as a ‘preventative measure” against people that may be planning harmful acts against the U.S in “2, 5 or even 10 years down the road.”
Here is a link to substantiate my ‘claim’:
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=109347699172&h=_fVbI&u=xbx2h&ref=mf
Regarding you point about the blaise application of “war crimes,” I agree that one should not throw around the term lightly, but I do not. The fact of the matter is that torture is a grave crime against human dignity, and the sad truth is that this country engaged in systemic torture for most of the Bush presidency. This is a horrible thing that many Americans have yet to come to grips with.
I agree with you that Obama’s plan for “prolonged detention” is the same affront to principles contained in the Bill of Rights. However, to his credit, Obama also revoked the Bush-era rules of torture in his first week in office. I would contend that a president should not have the unilateral power to make that decision, and there is still a long way to go in affirming the great American principle of due process of law, but it was at the very least a start towards a return.
As to your point about jurisdiction, I think the point is not about convening a grand jury against someone in Melbourne. Rather, the point relates to the principle that all people are entitled to the rule of law if they are under the jurisdiction of the United States. In the 1760s and 1770s, prior to the Revolution, the British were affirming their own principle that “A slave who breathes free air in England is free”. The idea was that whoever landed on English soil benefited from English law. This is where we get the maxim, “soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free.” The Framers would have been well aware of this development — their revolution, in fact, was predicated on the idea that they were better upholders of English liberty than the English themselves.
The Bill of Rights extends these concepts. Many people don’t realize how revolutionary the Bill of Rights really is. It is the idea that all people are entitled to certain protections under the government by virtue of their mere existence. This is a radical idea! It is radical because it places the power in the people themselves. Government becomes a way of protecting and ensuring natural rights that we are all entitled to by virtue of our existence — “All men are created equal” — as opposed to being some sordid instrument of tyranny and ambition.
Unfortunately, the Revolution was turned on its head, and the rise of corporate power has created a two-tiered system of government that benefits the few at the expense of the many. The Framers would be shocked at the level of government intrusion in everyday life today, and saddened by the level of acceptance regarding those intrusions.
So, yes, you are right that the Magna Carta did not apply to the Sultan in Persia, but the principle of Magna Carta was that government was limited by the consent of the governed. We have an amazing system of government that is revolutionary and radical in its application. Its true potential is clouded by disabuse. But that is not an excuse to let the principles gather dust. Rather, these principles need to be celebrated and reaffirmed, time after time. “The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind.” — Thomas Paine
Good website. Good discussion. I’m not so clever as the writers but I am a normal person who feels what is said even though I can’t say it. People lke me rely on people like you to sort out the legalise so that we can live un-hassled
with how the system works but honestly hold up our end of it. It seems the clever observers have taken over the asylum and running it to their advantage. I have a feeling this was always the case but now it is coming to a head. The plethora of new laws and misinformation and mendacity is such that we cannot remain ignorant. We need the truth and we rely on the clever observers to tell us where the real danger lies. Please help. I persoanlly believe there is no danger other than from our own clever observers. This is a society that cannot last. That is obvious to me.