Torture

[BetsyJ47 0]

If it is proven that the Bush administration authorized the torture of detainees, should GW be given the death penalty?

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

If it is proven that the Bush administration authorized the torture of detainees, should GW be given the death penalty?

IIRC the punishment a sitting president can receive if found guilty by impeachment is removal from office.

US Constitution Article 2 Section 4

Quote

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[Nightingale 0]

No. However, I don't think anyone should be given the death penalty. It's a waste of money, and I think Bush has wasted enough of our tax dollars already.

The thing is, even if Bush did authorize it, it's highly doubtful he'd even face charges here, and even if he did, it's highly doubtful that the death penalty would even be mentioned, much less pursued, although it is remotely possible under the US' war crimes act of 1996. If he was charged by the International Criminal Court (which can only act if the US is unwilling or unable to act), under the Statue of the International Criminal Court adopted in 1998, the death penalty is excluded from the punishments which this court will be authorized to impose, even though it has jurisdiction over extremely grave crimes such as crimes against humanity, including genocide, and violations of the laws of armed conflict. (source - Amnesty International)

[mr2mk1g 10]

By virtue of the 1957 Geneva Conventions Act, English courts have universal jurisdiction to hear cases against people accused of breaches of the Geneva Convention and crimes against humanity. Torture under most circumstances would fall within these powers.

Now if it were shown in the US (say resulting in impeachment or a national scandal) that Bush was complicit in, ordered or allowed torture in breach of the Geneva Conventions, English courts (as would many around the world) would then be empowered to take action against him. Indeed the treaties to which many nations subscribe put a positive obligation upon them to pursue such matters voraciously.

Also note that there isn't actually a need for these acts to be proven before such charges could be raised over here or elsewhere, only for allegations backed up with evidence. One thing that could happen is if another sovereign state filed international charges against Bush then English courts would be required to arrest and extradite him to that foreign power (assuming we had an extradition treaty with them).

In the UK the Criminal Justice Act 1988 incorporated the International Convention Against Torture into national law. This removes our doctrine of non-justicia where we decline to meddle in the internal affairs of foreign powers and instead again puts upon English courts a duty to prosecute in instances of alleged torture or other crimes against humanity.

The only thing that would then protect Bush from arrest on arrival in the UK would be his diplomatic immunity as provided by the British State Immunity Act 1978. This however applies only to serving heads of state. Once Bush left office he would no longer be protected by this immunity against such serious charges.

Normally he would continue to be protected from ordinary criminal charges conducted during his service as a former head of state. Protection however, is only provided for official acts on behalf of the state. Given that the US is a signatory to several international conventions prohibiting torture, anything done by a head of state allowing such acts cannot properly be said to be an official act on behalf of the state and would therefore not be protected. In addition to this, it has been held that crimes against humanity fall outside of this protection, irrespective of whether or not they were clearly done on behalf of a state which actually does condone torture.

As such... if someone out there thought they had evidence that Bush was complicit in the commission of torture in breach of the Geneva Convention... well they could easily bring charges against Bush in English courts once he had left office and have him arrested as soon as he entered the country. Indeed, as I said above, all it would take is charges somewhere else in the world were we have an extradition treaty and the English courts would again be required to act.

However here he would not face execution. At most it would be life imprisonment. If a country who did allow execution asked us to extradite him we would refuse to do so unless we were in receipt of a memorandum of understanding clearly stating that they would not execute him regardless of the courts eventual findings. The UK has a policy of not sending people to their deaths in other countries regardless of what they've done.

If you're interested further, look up an Israeli called Major General Doron Almog who narrowly escaped arrest last week and also General Augusto Pinochet, who blazed the trail for such charges back in 98 and helped clarify the law which I've outlined above.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

If it is proven that the Bush administration authorized the torture of detainees, should GW be given the death penalty?

Do you honestly think anything like this has a remote chance of ever going to court? Where did GWB ever give an order to torture detainees?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[crozby 0]

Quote

If it is proven that the Bush administration authorized the torture of detainees, should GW be given the death penalty?

Nah, he should be locked up, be kept awake for extended periods, have pissed off dogs shoved in his face, be made to form naked human pyramids for photo-ops, be flown around the globe to be tortured by questionable regimes, have his bible ripped up and thrown down the toilet, and after say four or five years, be released without charge.

[gemini 0]

Quote

...the Bush administration authorized the torture of detainees....

Mighty large group of people. What the hell, hang 'em all!

Blue skies,

Jim

[SpeedRacer 1]

get real, everybody. No charges like this will make it up that high in the chain of command.

The military & the government have things set up to protect people higher up.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[mr2mk1g 10]

Evidentially perhaps, yes. Legally; no. Bush could easily be held culpable on an international stage were the right evidence to become available.

All it would take is a couple of leaked documents. (Were such documents to exist of course; I'm looking at this on a purely theoretical basis you understand).

[rushmc 23]

The Geneva Convention has no standing in this case. These is not a uniformed enemy. (legal point only. not an argument in support of torture)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Evidentially perhaps, yes. Legally; no. Bush could easily be held culpable on an international stage were the right evidence to become available.

All it would take is a couple of leaked documents. (Were such documents to exist of course; I'm looking at this on a purely theoretical basis you understand).

This thread is a joke!!!???? right?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mr2mk1g 10]

As I indicate above, UK the Criminal Justice Act 1988 incorporated the International Convention against Torture. Were someone to bring charges against Bush in a UK court they would do so under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The International Convention against Torture prevents torture of any persons, irrespective of who they are or under what circumstances they're held. There is no need for them to be classified as any specific kind of detainee and there is no way to loose the protection of the convention – it covers EVERYONE.

Under that convention you cannot torture ANY person. ANY torture of ANY person is considered to be a "crime against humanity" and as such ANY court in ANY country where the convention has been given national authority has the power to hear the case.

This is how former head of state Augusto Pinochet was arrested and charged in the UK in 1998 for the torture of civilian occupants of his own country. They were not afforded any protection of the Geneva Convention either – but that didn’t stop Pinochet from getting fucked by international law.

Trust me, if it is shown that an individual has been torturing ANY kind of detainee ANYWHERE in the world, this law would allow ANY of the signatory states to take legal action against the perpetrator. Depending on the national law that can even include former heads of state. There is no technical legal bar to Bush being convicted on such charges were the right evidence to come to light.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

This thread is a joke!!!???? right?

No, I’m quite serious. If Bush has been complicit in torture and there is evidence of that come to light then he could be arrested, tried and convicted by any court anywhere in the world where the country is a signatory to the International Convention Against Torture.

Just look at what happened with Augusto Pinochet. A former head of state who was arrested and charged in a foreign country for acts he committed against his own citizens. The legal doctrine in the UK at least has already been well tested.

[Channman 2]

No, A celebration for getting the bad guys. You know the liberals need to hop on to something else, this is getting old, and the american people are not that offended by the so called torture of detainees.

Case in point, Man on Fire has an actor cutting the fingers off of a man to get information on a little girl just before putting a bullet through his head.

Another scene is were he has placed an explosive device up a dudes ass for additional information prior to walking away and setting the device off.

The movie made millions leaving the impression that they had it coming and the punishment was well deserved.

I could set here and name the movies and TV shows that show a heavy hand on those who have done a great evil, leaving the viewing saying yep that bastard deserved to get his butt kicked and his/her head blown away.

So enough of this torture crap, people eat this *&%^#@ up every day in our movies with no visible outrage, its obvious hollywood believe it's a viable option, Jennifer Gardner will be doing alittle pay back this week to avenge the killing of the father of her baby. I guess you want be asking for the death penalty for her fictional charater.

I'll say it again till am blue we're in it to win and if you don't like what you see you can close your eyes.

Should GW be given the death penalty? To respond further to this would only get be banded from this site.

Oh by the way from your profile Clubbing does'nt sound very nice, could it be you really do like torture.

[bodypilot90 0]

lame attempt from the left

[billvon 3,080]

>Man on Fire has an actor cutting the fingers off of a man . . .

> Jennifer Gardner will be doing alittle pay back this week . . .

>I guess you want be asking for the death penalty for her fictional charater.

At this point it would be good to point out the difference between fiction and reality.

We get screaming mad when US servicemen are tortured and killed. It would be nice if we got even a little upset when arab civilians are tortured and killed. Despite looking different they are every bit as human as the US servicemen.

(BTW in regards to the original post - no, if our government just stopped torturing people I'd be happy. No need to execute anyone.)

Edited to add - there is currently a bill on the floor of the Senate that bans torture of US prisoners. I hope it passes, for our sakes.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

I could set here and name the movies and TV shows that show a heavy hand on those who have done a great evil, leaving the viewing saying yep that bastard deserved to get his butt kicked and his/her head blown away.

I struggle to disbelieve the effect that mainstream media and entertainment has on the attitudes and motivations of the individual, but it's proven time and time again.

"Turn off your TV..."

Quote

I'll say it again till am blue we're in it to win and if you don't like what you see you can close your eyes.

No, one of the greatest things I love about my country is that if you don't like what you see, you *can* speak up. That opportunity was bought for us with the red blood of true patriots.

Why don't you support that, I wonder?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Despite looking different they are every bit as human as the US servicemen.

It's strange how the smug left have to constantly bring up obtuse statements like this. As it they have to remind themselves - "these are people, not just voting demographics the left takes for granted"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Hhmmm,
where does the US Constitution give up power to international law?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

lame attempt from the left

You got that right....... ah sorry

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JoeyRamone 0]

In my book no rules apply to war, ya do what ya need to do.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Hhmmm,
where does the US Constitution give up power to international law?

Why not check before you post a question like this? It only takes a minute or two. Or is your point to just be confrontational?

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Quote

Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

If we agreed to international law via treaties (which we have, and I'll let you do the Googling on this one), then what does the Constitution say about it?

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

In my book no rules apply to war, ya do what ya need to do.

We sponsored and agreed to these rules, with one very significant reason (among many) being to protect our own soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

Do you happen to have any children of service age, by chance?

[Channman 2]

>At this point it would be good to point out the difference between fiction and reality.

Bill,

The only point im making is if we are truely concerned about torture, then why do we play to it and regard it as exceptable in our movie culture. Hollywood is way left of center and they rely on this method of meadding out justisce all to often in movies and TV series.

They therefore play to the masses, that this is an exceptable method of gaining information to protect the poor and down trodden.

And that sir is reality. Our children look at movies and TV with a mind that is a sponge soaking it all up.

[billvon 3,080]

>The only point im making is if we are truely concerned about torture,
> then why do we play to it and regard it as exceptable in our movie culture.

Rape, mass murder, drug usage, and child abuse are also regularly portrayed in our movies. Do you think we find those things acceptable?

>And that sir is reality.

You and I have a different definition of reality then. A movie is simply not reality; it's about as far as you can get from reality. Confusing entertainment with reality leads to some very bad things.