Would war crimes trials against Bush team be legal?

Articles of impeachment have been filed over the Bush policies on torture and detention. In a new Democratic administration, a special prosecutor may be appointed. And human rights activists are calling on European allies to arrest Bush administration officials on suspicion of war crimes if they set foot abroad.

But can -- or should -- officials who carried out their duties at a time of war be prosecuted?

In a column posted today titled "Our Leaders Are Not War Criminals", Stuart Taylor, the National Journal's legal columnist, argues they shouldn't be.

An excerpt:

Might ["20th hijacker" Mohammed al-] Kahtani have information that could save lives? After months of gentle questioning, he was mocking his interrogators with obvious lies. So officers at Guantanamo sent their list of 18 coercive methods up the chain of command. The attacks on Haynes center on some of the 15 that he and Rumsfeld approved as legal, with the concurrence of Gen. Richard Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith:

Isolation for up to 30 days; "use of 20-hour interrogations"; "removal of clothing"; forced grooming and shaving of beards; depriving detainees of light and sound; hooding them (without restricting breathing); withholding hot rations; "grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger, and light pushing"; using "individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress"; and "the use of stress positions (like standing) for a maximum of four hours."

Human-rights activists view some of these methods as torture. But as a legal matter, Haynes's advice was reasonable. None of the approved methods comes close to violating the 1994 U.S. law that makes torture a crime. That law defines torture quite narrowly, as the intentional infliction of "severe physical or mental pain or suffering." The law further specifies that mental suffering qualifies as "severe" only if it involves "the prolonged mental harm" caused by use of mind-altering substances or the threat of severe physical suffering or imminent death.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo: Associated Press

Comments

[Almost Angeleno]

The entire Bush Administration has been one large criminal enterprise.

[Chris H]

The U.S. has not signed onto the International Criminal Court, and its officials would indeed be liable to ICC action, since it is unlikely Bush officials will be prosecuted at home (impeachment, slightly more likely, is not prosecution). However, long before the ICC, there were international mechanisms to deal with war criminals, and Bush administration officials will have to be wary of arrest - if their planes are diverted to what they see as an 'unsafe' country, for example. In the extra-legal sphere (that the Bushies specialize in), wouldn't it be ironic if some small country instituted its own (secret) extraordinary rendition policy, snatching ex-Bushies off the street, for a secret trial after 6 years of anonymous imprisonment?

[guy]

what about the innocent people imprisoned and tortured
how come the people defending torture never get that
they always use the example of the worst of the worst terrorist
my concern is with the innocent people caught up in the bush war on terror

there are massive amounts of proof to incriminate them in war crimes
they should be prosecuted
imo

[EM writer]

Why anyone would want to "follow" this person until his "retirement" to Crawford is a joke. That day cannot come too soon, and it will be good riddance for the entire nation.
He'll receive a pension and Secret Service protection for life, but what he deserves is prosecution for having broken dozens of U.S. and international laws. Whether justice will be meted out, only time will tell. It's going to take only a few courageous individuals to get the ball rolling in terms of seeing that Bush is held accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors.

[VultureTX]

Chris H said"The U.S. has not signed onto the International Criminal Court, and its officials would indeed be liable to ICC action"

Only if the UN security council sanctioned it or Afghanistan authorized it for an incident in that country. Iraq and the US are not members of the Treaty of Rome. And since neither of those two actions is likely or actually remotely possible , there will be no ICC trial of the GWB administration. Just like there will be no impeachment. Why because the UN was complicit on one level in their dealings with Saddam and the taliban (see UN drug war) . And the democrats were complicit in going to war on the impeachment front.

There is a reason nothing has been done about this even after various people got elected on the whole punish GWB platform.

But hey Blogging is free and worth what you pay for it. As opposed to actual legal scholars and informed politicos.

[davis]

We are working on singing the mood to get these criminals out!

Join us?

http://www.earcandleproductions.com/Get_Out.mp3

http://www.earcandleproductions.com/Democracy.mp3

If we can't do it legally, maybe we can do it through
ROCK AND ROLL!

[davis]

We are working on singing the mood to get these criminals out!

Join us?

http://www.earcandleproductions.com/Get_Out.mp3

http://www.earcandleproductions.com/Democracy.mp3

If we can't do it legally, maybe we can do it through
ROCK AND ROLL!

[Ed]

According to an article published in "The Lancet", more than 600,000 people have died as a result of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Several of the detainees died as a result of "harsh interrogations" - this was not just being forced to stand for 4 hours. We've seen some of the pictures. Detainees were held in secret prisons to avoid International Red Cross contact. Iraq never attack the U.S., so the U.S. invasion was an act of aggression. Clearly, we are talking war crimes here.