Boris Johnson, the conservative Mayor of London, has declared George Bush a persona non grata — asking him to stay out of London with his new torture-touting memoir. The question is whether such international shunning will become actual effort to prosecute Bush, who just confessed to war crimes. I discussed the controversy on Countdown.
Johnson begins his column without mincing words:
It is not yet clear whether George W Bush is planning to cross the Atlantic to flog us his memoirs, but if I were his PR people I would urge caution. As book tours go, this one would be an absolute corker. It is not just that every European capital would be brought to a standstill, as book-signings turned into anti-war riots. The real trouble — from the Bush point of view — is that he might never see Texas again.
It seems that, while our own Democratic and Republican leaders do not want to discuss torture (let alone investigate it), the Mayor of London is not keen on a former leader flogging his memoir and proudly proclaiming how he ordered the torture of suspects.
The controversy may only be the first international reaction to the book. While our media has discussed the book rather matter-of-factly as acknowledging his order to waterboard suspects, other nations take international treaties seriously and view this as an admission of a war crime.
Previously, Cheney and others were the subject of international calls for arrest after they admitted to roles in the torture program. The United States has a clear obligation to prosecute those responsible for our torture program. However, President Obama has promised to block any investigation of torturers and has stopped any investigation of those who ordered the war crime. In the absence of nations enforcing their international obligations, other nations will often set forward to enforce the rule of law.
Such claims are sometimes based on universal jurisdiction (or the universality principle) which asserts the right under public international law for any state to enforce laws against crimes outside its boundaries, regardless of nationality or country of residence of the accused. This enforcement is generally limited to such things as war crimes — viewed as a crime against all under such agreements as the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. Obviously, such moves are controversial and subject to intense challenge. For example, one question is whether Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions restricts universal prosecution of crimes to “international conflicts” to the exclusion of torture at CIA facilities or Gitmo. Ironically, Bush always emphasizes the “war on terror” as an international effort.
In addition, since we tortured foreign citizens, those countries would have grounds to issue a warrant as was the case in the arrest of former dictator of Chile Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet was arrested in London in 1998 on an order from Spanish Judge Baltazar Garzon who cited Spanish victims in Chile. Regardless of the grounds, any warrant for Bush would put Obama in an even more ignoble position on torture (if that is possible). He would have to fight an effort to enforce human rights law while blocking such enforcement at home. We would be in the same position as Serbia in both protecting accused war criminals and resisting efforts of other countries in seeking to prosecute them.
In the meantime, Bush’s book tour schedulers may want to avoid those countries which care about human rights and focus on such natural allies as China, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. He might want to avoid Italy, Spain, and much of Western Europe.
Cheney and Bush have now virtually dared anyone to come after them. They know that Obama has chosen politics over principle. The question is whether the shunning in London will become an actual effort in another country to issue an arrest warrant.
Currently, the debate over torture in the United States is focusing not on the use of torture but whether actual evidence derived from torture should be admissible in federal court. That was the position of Gov. Pataki in our recent debate on Hardball:
Debates of that kind send a message to other countries that we are well past any debate over the use of torture and are now arguing over the use of the fruits of torture. When combined with the Bush book and Cheney interviews, some leaders may view any enforcement of international law as up to other countries. In the absence of such enforcement, they could feel that their countries will be compromised like the United States in turning a blind eye to a war crime or a war criminal.
This brings us back to Boris Johnson. It is rather difficult to say that your country rejects torture when it is feting a former leader who has publicly admitted to ordering torture (and remains proud of it).
Jonathan Turley
Holy subpoena, Blouise!
Rumpole for Bush?
He doesn’t deserve that good a barrister. 😉
Bush standing in the Dock … Rumpole for the defense
Gyges,
Or that aiding and abetting treason is also treason.
And extraordinary rendition.
Buddha,
Let’s not forget that refusing to prosecute people who committed\commanded torture is of itself a crime according to the UN convention against torture. Or the drone attacks.
You smell your own upper lip, Chip.
No one here to my knowledge expects Obama to lead anything like a prosecution.
Why?
That’s not his job.
That’s his equally spineless creature Holder’s job as Attorney General.
What we expect Obama to do is get the Hell out of the way and for Holder to do his job and uphold his sworn Constitutional duty.
However, “Turley and this whole chatroom insist this should be the case” is at worst a falsehood and at best a fine example of the logical fallacy of composition (the from each to all error). Obama himself has violated the 4th Amendment by claiming to have the legal power to assassinate American citizens without due process – as egregious a crime as any committed by the previous administration absent their illegal invasion of a country that didn’t attack us. Some of us consider Obama as big a criminal as Bush.
Oh no, I have a much better idea, why doesn’t Professor Turley lead the charge to the International Criminal Court at the Hague…I swear to God I’ll join the cause. The question is ‘Why don’t they bring charges?’
http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/home
You folks are doing nothing, but snarking on the administration.
Sandy Haley, if you want charges brought on W-Cheney then the people to talk to are in the International Criminal Court at the Hague…here’s their contact…
http://www.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/home
Or you could contact your US Congressional Representatives.
Never in US history has the President of the United States been the chief prosecutor or instigator in any criminal case, war crimes or otherwise, but Turley and this whole chatroom insist this should be the case. I smell a fish.
This nation is knocked out cold on our own Ambien and we aren’t going to wake up until the room is completely engulfed in flames.
Powerfully written, JT.
If I, as an attorney, become aware that another attorney has committed an ethical violation, or a crime, then it becomes an ethical violation on my part to remain silent. Where and to whom do I report Holder and Obama for derelection of their duty as officers of the court first, and violation of their respective oaths of office, second?
The World Court at the Hague could bring charges RIGHT NOW!
THEY DON’T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THEY CATCH
GEORGE W BUSH VISITING EUROPE!
That is the point. If ‘Europe’ as Turley says, are down on the USA and President Barack Obama over this issue then why doesn’t the World Court START THE BALL ROLLING BY PRESSING CHARGES on W!
Mr. Turley KNOWS that would raise the level of pressure on the US government to address the issue and he ignores that in his criticism of the president.
if gw bush is arrested in london will he face a civilian court or a military tribunal?
Mr. Turley,
Your spot on the Olbermann show has proven to me that you are out to get president Obama. I recall clearly that you heckled his campaign.
I’m sure you have spoken to ‘Europeans’ who are disappointed with the US and our president concerning the torture issue. I know waterboarding is torture. But the fact is that the International Court at the Hague could bring charges against W the Ex-president at any time.
It is also a fact that, were the United States Government to prosecute anyone on this issue, that effort would logically and legally begin in the US Congress or our court system and not in the Executive Branch.
There clearly have been serious moral and legal crimes commited in our history by people in high public office…never has it been the case that the prosecution ws led by the president.
Professor Turley,
If you were the judge, I’d have some hope that a civilian trial would be legitimate but I’ve been watching and trials of “Muslim terrorists” are going to be travesties. The Moussaoui proceedings were a travesty. Remember Moussaoui passing Judge Brinkema a note, “Why don’t we just kill ZM?” and he was right, the plan was to just kill him and the judge was OK with going along. But for one juror in the sentencing. He would have been executed.
I followed the OJ Simpson trial and that was not a capital murder trial and I saw that Simpson’s lawyer were, legitimately, allowed to question evidence, including chain of custody of evidence. Judge Brinkema let anything in that the government wanted just on the government saying it was evidence. All of a sudden they come up with a business card they say they found and it has a hand written phone number on it and they claim Moussaoui also called that number, with no proof that he did, just claiming. The Judge let it in.
Congratulations, George W. Bush!
You’ve won an all expenses paid trip to Spain! Spain! Where you can enjoy the hot Ibiza sun . . . through the bars of your prison window.
(oh please oh please oh please)
I would suspect that Mr. Johnson’s pronouncement was the first salvo in a coming fusilade of outside pressure on the US to do something about bringing Bush/Cheney to account for their actions.
Which agency(s) is involved in orchestrating this will probably never be known, but perhaps they were waiting for an admission in writing and Mr. Bush has at last furnised it. His lawyers probably gave that the OK just like they did the original illegal acts.
We can now watch the Kabuki dance of “Make me do the right thing” play out. Meanwhile Mr. Durham’s investigations are continuing and have been expanded by AG Holder so they can’t be charged of malfeasance.
Professor Turley is a better man than me listening patiently to that buffoon Pataki filibuster the questions. A Columbia law grad — like Pataki — knows better and to argue on sheer emotion against the Rule of Law in that way is a disgrace to him and those who ushered him to the bar. Pataki’s last stupid statement — that the Rule Of Law operates to deny those charged in American courts with the full protection of the Bill of Rights unless they are citizens — is simply wrong on the law. Citizenship has never been a prerequisite to Constitutional protections in American courts.
Do Republicans believe in nothing except expediency to promote demagoguery?
oops Cheney looks too sick.
Bush was never much of an overseas traveler before he became president. He traveled between Texas and Maine. I think that is pretty much what he does now. Cheney looks to sick to do much traveling.
I would love to see George W. arrested overseas, but I would also be disappointed that we did not follow the law here in the US. It is obvious that Gov. Pataki didn’t want these detainees to be tried in a court that might actually follow the law.