Bush and Obama: War Crimes or Lawful Wars?

This afternoon, I will be one of the moderators as part of “Debating Taboos” series of the Center for Study of Responsive Law. This series, organized by consumer rights icon Ralph Nader, is designed to foster dialogue in areas where politicians and even reporters tend to avoid substantive discussion. This part is entitled “Bush and Obama: War Crimes or Lawful Wars – Debating Taboos.” I will be asking questions from the perspective of those who view torture as a war crime while Stuart Taylor of Newsweek will ask questions from the other side of the debate. The event is open to the public.

Here is the line up:

Debaters arguing for the proposition that Bush and Obama engaged in war crimes

Bruce Fein is an attorney and constitutional scholar, and has consulted foreign nations on matters ranging from constitutional revision to telecommunications and cable regulation, and human rights. He appears regularly on national and international television, cable, and radio programs as an expert in foreign affairs, terrorism, national security, and has testified over 200 times before Congressional committees. .

Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer is a highly experienced U.S. Army intelligence officer, and is nationally known as a Subject Matter Expert (SME) for intelligence collection and policy, terrorism, data mining, situational awareness and adaptive/disruptive technologies. He is also a senior advisor to multiple organizations on terrorism and counterinsurgency issues and a member of the US Nuclear Strategy Forum.

Debaters arguing against the proposition that Bush and Obama engaged in war crimes

David B. Rivkin is a member of Baker & Hostetler Law Firm’s litigation, international and environmental groups and co-chairs the firm’s appellate and major motions team. He served in the White House Counsel’s office and the Department of Justice under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Prior to embarking on a legal career, Mr. Rivkin worked as a defense and foreign policy analyst, focusing on Soviet affairs, arms control, naval strategy and NATO-related issues, and served as a defense consultant to numerous government agencies and Washington think tanks.

Lee Casey a partner at Baker & Hostetler, focuses on federal environmental, constitutional and international law and Alien Tort Statute issues. He served in the Department of Justice under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He also advises clients on compliance issues under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), U.S. trade sanctions regimes, and federal ethics requirements. Mr. Casey’s practice includes federal, district and appellate court litigation, as well as matters before federal agencies. From 2004 through 2007 he served as a member of the United Nations Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Here are the details:

When: Friday, November 18, 2011 at 12:30 p.m.
What: Bush/Obama: War Crimes or Lawful Wars?
Where: 1530 P St NW, Washington, DC – Carnegie Institution building

61 thoughts on “Bush and Obama: War Crimes or Lawful Wars?”

  1. I am not sure where Gerald gets off giving orders around here. Good luck on that. He will have about as much success as a June Bug convention in the henhouse.

  2. Gerald,
    Take a hike. I don’t answer to you and I did not call you any names. I have made my position on war crimes and torture by Bush and Obama very clear in past postings.
    Mike,
    I have to echo the statement made by Gyges! Hilarious.

  3. Being Jewish does not relieve one of the possibility of fascist tendencies. I’m nearly as old as LL and the machinations of him and his followers bores me. One can’t make the bloviations of a con man into the insights of a prophet. And yes I’m being deliberately insulting and dismissive.

  4. Mike S.

    You owe me both the cost of the beer I spit out, and the keyboard I spit it on. It’s funny because it’s true.

  5. Greg,
    You are insulting Bruce Fein and Mr. Boyle by including them in the same breath with that scum bag, Lyndon LaRouche.
    OS,
    Con man is the right term for LaRouche, along with ex-con as Gene reminds us.

    1. Rafflaw,
      You have moved me to some ancient childhood memories of
      growing up Jewish in Brooklyn, New York in the 1950’s.
      It went something like this, (maybe you remember it, too)

      “Sticks and stones, may break my bones, but words can never harm them…….

      So, now that you have made it abundantly clear of your shall we call it generously, “your dislike of LaRouche,” let us leave that aside,
      and would you kindly give Professors Boyle and Bruce Fein, your opinion of the violations by Obama of the so-called War Powers Clause of the Constitution, and if you have the courage to answer on that, which I am beginning to believe that you lack the simple courage and morality to answer the question, but go ahead and prove me wrong.
      After you answer, I have a follow-up!

  6. Gene and raff, that old con man apparently is still trying to run his con. I had thought he had died, but no such luck. What amazes me is the mental gymnastics his followers have to maneuver to avoid seeing who and what he really is. But then, Jim Jones, Charles Manson and other famous cult leaders managed to pull off the same psychological trick. A study in abnormal psychology. Interesting.

  7. raff/OS,

    While I consider this topic of the utmost importance and applaud JT’s involvement in the public debate, I too share your disdain for all things LaRouche. That his past tactics of demonizing Jews, Zionists, blacks, and labor unions in what can best be described as his neo-fascist movement is enough to discredit him. The fact that he was convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud is only icing on the cake. He’s a lot like the Koch Brothers, but just not smart enough to try to put makeup on his ideological warts.

  8. Turley, Yer boyfriend Olbermann is sucking garbage and doing massages for Al Gore at Current TV.

    Nice move eh?

  9. Attention: rafflaw, anon nurse

    FYI, this is a legal blog to discuss a life and death issue of this Republic and the burning question of whether or not lawlessness by Bush before, and Obama now, could end us up in Nuclear World War III, as most recently warned by General NIkolai Makarov, the chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, and Retired General Joseph Hoar, former head of CENTCOM of the USA.
    So, try to concentrate on that, leave your mud-slinging aside, control yourself and answer the simple question I shall pose below.
    Remember, this is a question of the Constitution, War and Peace, and the potential indictment for War Crimes and Impeachment of President Barack Obama.
    Please answer:
    The following people have stated for the public record that President Barack Obama has violated the so-called War Powers Clause of the Constitution, Article !, Section 8 and the War Powers Resolution of Congress of 1973 By engaging in a clearly Unconstitutional War in Libya, with absolutely no authorization from Congress. Thus Obama has committed a crime for which he is potentially Impeachable.

    1. Bruce Fein, Constitutional Lawyer
    2. Francis Boyle- Constitutional Lawyer
    3. Lyndon Larouche- economist, former Presidential Candidate
    4. All of the Above.

    So, the question is, pick out the correct answer from those 4 choices,and then state for the record, whether you agree or disagree.
    If you agree, explain why you agree.
    If you disagree, explain why you disagree.

    This exercise in creative thinking on your part will help you regain your powers of reason, and thus bring you back to reality.
    Remember, this is a legal blog, Stick to the issue being discussed. NO DIVERSIONS ALLOWED. Diversions will simply be an admission that you have nothing of substance to say. Gerald

  10. I will bookmark for viewing as well. This is a topic I have a lot of personal interest in, even if Ralph Nader is not, and never will be in this lifetime, on my Christmas card list.

  11. raff, I am with you. I would not click on a link to a LaRouche site on a bet. Yuck! The only derangement syndrome worse than the Birther Derangement Syndrome.

Comments are closed.