Redux

I may be wrong but I believe Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) apply to both POWs and civilians held in detention. The Bush interpretation was that prisoners held at Gitmo (and other black holes) were neither and he created his own new designation to circumvent treaty obligations.

I doubt that Bush could be tried for war crimes, however I do think there was compelling evidence that he may have committed impeachable offenses, including authorizing harsh interrogation techniques that met the standards of torture in the above treaties that the US signed.

One question for an impeachment trial might have been if Bush had the unilateral legal and constitutional authority to interpret Geneva and CAT simply based on a DoJ "finding" and w/o congressional or judicial review. I think there is a Supreme Court case that ruled that it is the legislative branch that is responsible for implementing legislation when there are questions of interpretation of treaty obligations...not the executive branch.

Water under the bridge...but all the more reason why I think we need an independent commission to review practices like the above and, IMO, the equally serious issues and questionable practices associated with Bush's interpretation of a Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) giving himself broader "war powers" than those designated in an AUMF.