George Bush should be in jail.

Thank you for presenting this debate. As a student interested in Law, I am always eager to discuss matters such as this one. I will agree to your terms, as every debate should be conducted in a respectful manner.With that said, do note that pro has not yet made any allegations against George [W?] Bush. The only grounds upon which I can assert his innocence is thus the presumption of innocence, or the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim. Therefore, I deem it perfectly reasonable to place the burden of proof entirely on Pro. In the event of insufficient evidence, ex-president Bush will be deemed innocent from the perspective of this debate.However, as I am to present a case (of innocence?) in round one, I shall bring into light several counts on which one might think Bush to be guilty, and give a brief response to each.1) Putting together the 9/11 attacks. As I respect my opponent more than to assume by default that this is her position, I shall not elaborate too much on it. However, I would like to make the mention that if this is what is to be presented, the evidence is astoundingly underwhelming to suspect even an inside job, let alone the work of a specific individual. Pro would need to either support the existing evidence or bring into light new evidence to support the conclusion. Furthermore, Pro would need to justify that the conclusion singles out Bush as one of those responsible.2) Plunging America into a war against Afghanistan. From the very start, this is not an illegal act by the president. If this were an illegal act at all, it would be an illegal act of Congress, as Congress is the entity responsible for declaring war. [1, Article 1, section 8, paragraph 11]3) Plunging America into a war against Iraq. Again, this would not be an illegal act by the president, but an illegal act of Congress. [1, Article 1, section 8, paragraph 11]4) Approval of torture.Torture - For the purpose of a definition, I would like to adopt the definition at the top of the Wikipedia Article. [2] Pro may propose an alternative definition as long as it is reasonable.In the case of Bush's approval of "advanced interrogation techniques" (aka torture), it was obviously for the purpose of forcing one to say something, namely, information pertaining to future attacks. This means that these techniques are not punishments, and thus, are not illegal acts according to the 8th Amendment. [1, Amendment 8] The only remaining authority on the subject of torture is the Third Geneva Convention, which I shall address in a moment. As for the 8th Amendment, it should be noted that the persons being interrogated under the Bush administration were not American citizens. Thus, they are not granted this particular protection.As per the Third Geneva Convention, the torture of a POW is strictly forbidden. This is known as a war crime, and is what George Bush is often accused of in the context of approving torture. However, according to Article 4, section 1, subsection 2, of Part 1 of the Third Geneva Convention, a person only gains POW status if they have, among other things, "...[conducted] their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." [3] Terrorism is itself a war crime, as determined by Section 1, Article 33 of Part 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. [4] Thus, any person who is responsible for an act of terrorism is immediately stripped of POW status. This means that the Third Geneva Convention does not prohibit the torture of terrorists. George Bush's approval of torture applied only to al Quaeda members. As a terrorist organization, this exempts its members from POW status. The three confirmed detainees subjected to waterboarding to date are Khalid ShaikhMohammed, Abu Zubayda, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. [5][6] These people certainly do not qualify under those protected.With no legal restrictions regarding torture of al Quaeda members, George Bush cannot be placed in jail for his non-crime.If pro decides to approch this from a purely ethical standpoint, I suggest Utilitarianism as the ethical theory of choice. [7] Torture on these grounds is not only acceptable, but is the moral thing to do. Waterboarding of al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed led to the prevention of a terrorist attack on Los Angeles. [8] We sacrificed the safety and comfort of one person to save the lives of potentially thousands.If none of these allegations are being made, simply say so and make your case. If any of these ARE the allegation being made, feel free to respond to anything which I have said here as you are making your case.Thank you![1] http://www.usconstitution.net...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikisource.org...[4] http://en.wikisource.org...[5] http://jurist.law.pitt.edu...[6] http://blogs.abcnews.com...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://www.cnsnews.com...;