He sez this, he sez:
Time was, I could mutter darkly about the arrogance of universal human rights violations and “rule from Brussels” and all of that. Now I say, bring it on. My own country has asserted its own universal jurisdiction, but a much more grandiose and damaging version of it. You don’t see Belgian judges conquering entire countries in the name of “freedom” or “benevolent hegemony.” Given a choice between grabbing the odd retired official from an airport, jailing him in comfort and allowing him access to counsel and a public trial, and triggering the killing of tens to hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions, while shoving hundreds of prisoners into legal black holes for abuse, the lesser evil kind of jumps out at me.
Inspired by the latest outrage. I wouldn’t object, but it seems unlikely. For all its unilateralism, the Bush administration has been very good about getting lots of partners for its riskiest ventures – see, for example, the Coalition of the Willing. When the CIA sets up secret prisons, it does so with the consent of the foreign governments who host them. When the CIA wanted to transport suspects to these facilities, or outsource them to the facilities of torture-friendly foreign governments, it could only have done so with the high-level of cooperation of most European governments (until the shit hit the fan, of course, when began intense competition for the Claude Raines Memorial Gambling Awareness Award). None of which makes any of it right, or legal, or legitimate, but all of which would make it really awkward for anyone who proposed to actually put anyone who knew anything on trial and, like, let them talk. For this reason, I’d peg the chances of seeing Bush in the Hague slightly below the chances of seeing Hu Jintao, or Pooty-Poot, or any leader of a powerful country who regularly tortures and detains without trial, there – so somewhere south of “fat fucking chance”. The banality of evil strikes again.
That said, there was a time when politicians – sitting Preznits, even! – could be held accountable for high crimes against the Constitution getting a blow job from a chubby girl. If elected officials won’t do their duty (for reasons why this might be, see the previous paragraph), there is still good old American legal system. People are working on this. Yoo Ewe Ess Ay! Ewe Ess Ay!
April 4, 2008 at 11:34 am
(adjusted for libertarianism)
I suppose I need to thank you for this.
And that means I hafta read it, doesn’t it?
You’re mean, The Editors!
April 4, 2008 at 11:53 am
That’s a good boy. You can go out and play now.
April 4, 2008 at 12:37 pm
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
April 4, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Now we come to the central paradox of libertarianism:
governments who deregulate leave nothing regulated, including government.
April 4, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Chubby girls have a right to give a good blow job too!!
April 4, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Go back to Russia.
April 4, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Hmmm, Eastern European rendition… Ukraine in NATO… Quid pro quo?
April 4, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Not to get all Lee Siegelly here, but here’s the intertubes at work:
Vanity Fair article:
Wikipedia:
April 4, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Don’t forget than when the president wants the retroactive cover of law for his war crimes, one quarter of the Senate Democratic caucus votes along with the Republicans to give it to him.
April 4, 2008 at 3:43 pm
So let’s jail the one quarter of the Democrats too. I can live with 75% sane.
April 4, 2008 at 5:00 pm
John Yoo is nuts, and shouldn’t be a primary source of any law.
April 4, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Feith continued to champion US respect for the Geneva Conventions
Funny, The guy who added that used an IP in Washington, DC.
Developing…
April 4, 2008 at 6:21 pm
in developing news, wikipedia is not always reliable.
in developing news for idiot wingnut warmongering neo-con lying gasbag stupidest fucking assholes in the world, IPs can be traced.
April 4, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Clinton wasn’t impeached for the blow job! He was impeached because he made an arguably false statement about a matter that was completely immaterial to a trumped-up lawsuit. I’m certain that if we spent millions of dollars to go after any given congresscritter and put the schmuck in the dock, the congresscritter would give testimony that even his most vicious critics would admit to be complete, candid, and truthful.
April 4, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Oh, by the way: psych.
April 4, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Timothy Burke was just talking about this same issue, only for the case of Zimbabwe. There’s this tradeoff between the justice of punishing evil bastard rulers for their crimes, and the need for some incentive for them to get out of power peacefully, and learned people who talk what to do about countries ruled by kleptocrats constantly discuss this tradeoff, but the fact is that it’s somewhat fantastical because most of the time there’s nothing they can do about it anyway.
He was talking about Africa, but, reading the whole thing, I was thinking that it had more practical application to the United States. We can talk all we want about putting Bush and Cheney in the dock in the Hague, but if there were any non-negligible chance it would happen, it would probably just lead to them trying some dictatorial power grab to keep from leaving office.
April 4, 2008 at 9:31 pm
The main impediment to arresting Bush overseas would be his successor, whoever it might be. If Bush were to be arrested overseas, the next president would move heaven and earth to spring him, for fear of setting a precedent for arresting US officials. Superior officials of the foreign government might want to spring Bush on their own out of the darkness of their own hearts, but trusting that they will do so is risky.
There is not the slightest chance that Bush or Cheney would attempt anything worse than trying to destroy all the evidence that they can and trying to pardon themselves before their terms expire. As things stand, everybody’s just waiting for Bush and Cheney’s terms to expire so that they leave on their own. There is no conceivable scenario where any military unit will let Bush stay a single hour longer.
I would be satisfied with the next president promising to ship Bush and Cheney off to the Hague if they tried to pardon themselves, so that Bush and Cheney could at least in theory be held responsible. Don’t think that the next president would have the guts to do it, though.
Don’t think that Bush or Cheney would put themselves in the position to get arrested overseas, either. It isn’t as if either of them were terribly interested in foreign travel before they hit the big time.
April 4, 2008 at 9:55 pm
We should find a way to bump the inauguration up to December, all of a sudden like, so that Bush just wakes up on Christmas and finds out he’s not President anymore and doesn’t get to pardon anyone.
April 5, 2008 at 11:09 am
We should find a way to bump the inauguration up to December, all of a sudden like, so that Bush just wakes up on Christmas and finds out he’s not President anymore and doesn’t get to pardon anyone.
Perhaps whoever wins in November could pay a young law professor to determine that moving the inauguration up a month falls under the President Elect’s Commander-in-Chief powers.
April 5, 2008 at 11:18 am
[...] on trial. The discussion has turned to whether Bush might pardon himself and Cheney, and an excellent suggestion was made: We should find a way to bump the inauguration up to December, all of a sudden like, so [...]
April 6, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Perhaps whoever wins in November could pay a young law professor to determine that moving the inauguration up a month falls under the President Elect’s Commander-in-Chief powers.
Love it, IB. that’s hilarious.
June 6, 2008 at 12:04 pm
[...] it is highly improbable that anyone important will ever go to prison for lying, or even for the actual crimes committed during the war. It is unlikely that any of the major players will personally suffer anything more than mild [...]