Opening:

Good afternoon, your Honors. We are here acting as

representatives of the United States Congress in this impeachment
proceeding against President George Herbert Walker Bush. We will
prove that the President, through both his actions in the Persian Gulf as
well as his use of the United Nations Security Council as a rubber stamp
to support his war, ought to be impeached.
Most of the facts of this case are well known, but a brief recitation
is in order. On August 2nd, 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. That day,
Operation Desert Shield, a “wholly defensive mission” undertaken by
the United States, began. Following the invasion, the United Nations
Security Council began to pass resolutions condemning the annexation
of Kuwait, providing economic sanctions, and setting up a naval
blockade, leading up to UN SC Resolution 678, which gave Iraq until
January 15th, 1991 to withdraw from Kuwait and allowing for states to
use “all necessary means” to force Iraq out after that deadline. On
January 16th, 1991, the United States launched Operation Desert Storm,
an offensive mission.
The international approval, at first glance, seems to support the
President’s actions. However, the Security Council’s support was false,
based on carrot and stick-based strongarming by President Bush rather
than sincere support.
Moreover, President Bush’s decisions cross the line into
congressional powers to declare war, force the United States to violate
international laws and norms, and lead to the deaths of innocent
civilians. For these reasons, he ought to be impeached.
"his preparing, planning, and conspiring to commit crimes against the
peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iraq";
(Jay)

 Part 1: Was President Bush guilty of crimes against the peace?

Yes.
o In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against
Peace as “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war
of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties,
agreements or assurances” and “Participation in a common
plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of” these
acts.
o The first Gulf War falls into this as a war of aggression
 A war of aggression- a war without the justification of
individual or collective self-defense. Often these wars
are wars of conquest, seeking additional territories or
resources.
 Motivating factor- oil
 Iraq invaded Kuwait in large part due to Kuwait
flooding the market with oil and decreasing the
price. Price decreases benefit the United States as
much as they hurt Iraq. Of course the United
States would invade to prevent Iraq from raising
prices again.
 Counterpoint- Collective self-defense
 UN Charter article 51 allows for wars for
collective self-defense and the Security Council to
allow for such actions- UN SC determines if
actions of collective self-defense can continue
 Yes, UN Security Council Resolution 678
authorized Desert Storm as an action of collective
self-defense
 However, as Bucci will address, these resolutions
were passed under duress by the United States and
 should therefore be seen as illegitimate
expressions of the wishes of member states.
 Part 2: Are crimes against peace impeachable? Even for the
President? Yes.
o The Law of Land Warfare (Army Field Manual 27-10)
 “Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or
a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a
crime under international law is responsible therefor
and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection
with war comprise: a. Crimes against peace. b. Crimes
against humanity. c. War crimes.”
 “Although this manual recognizes the criminal
responsibility of individuals for those offenses which
may comprise any of the foregoing types of crimes,
members of the armed forces will normally be
concerned, only with those offenses constituting “war
crimes”.”
 The manual also explicitly states that “military
commanders may be responsible for war crimes
committed by subordinate members of the armed
forces, or other persons subject to their control”.
 Is the President a “military commander”? Even if
he isn’t in the traditional sense of the word, the
principle of vicarious liability still should apply
here.
 “The fact that a person who committed an act which
constitutes a war crime acted as the head of a State or as
a responsible government official does not relieve him
from responsibility for his act”
 While this is about war crimes, this can be
attributed to the manual’s self-acknowledged
focus on war crimes. The same principle applies
to crimes against peace.
 “The fact that domestic law does not impose a penalty
for an act which constitutes a crime under international
 law does not relieve the person who committed the act
from responsibility under international law”
 The actions are still criminal, even if there is no
domestic law to state it.
o Even if one doubts the use of Army Field Manuals as sources
of criminal law, there is still a broader understanding of
impeachable offenses to consider
o “Omitting qualifications, and recognizing that the definition
is only an approximation, I think we can say that “high
Crimes and Misdemeanors,” in the constitutional sense,
ought to be held to be those offenses which are rather
obviously wrong, whether or not “criminal,” and which so
seriously threaten the order of political society as to make
pestilent and dangerous the continuance in power of their
perpetrator” - Charles Black, Impeachment: A Handbook
 Impeachment has to be obviously wrong and threaten
the order of political society.
 I cannot think of anything more obviously wrong than a
crime against peace.
 In fact, the term crime against peace was first
defined during the Nuremberg Tribunal to
prosecute World War II. During the trials, the
American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson,
discussed crimes against peace. He said, “To
initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only
an international crime; it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war
crimes in that it contains within itself the
accumulated evil of the whole.”
 In addition, violations of international law, especially
major parts of international law, undoubtedly threaten
the order of political society at its highest echelons.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2203107