Should Bush Be Tried as a War Criminal?

MeatProduct

Has young Bush gone too far? Does his own country need to be liberated from him?

This poll is to view opinions on Bush as a war criminal. Of course the chances of him ever being tried as a war criminal are almost nonexistant but it's nice to play pretend

Nick

MeatProduct

I wonder under what kind of scenario could the remote possibility of Bush being tried occur. There would have to be some fairly major event. Any thoughts?

Nick

I voted yes, but its never going to happen. The majority of US presidents have made decisions or been responsible for extreme results that involve massive civilian casualties. But they've never been pulled up on it. For example, I never knew this but saw it last night on the History channel, that 200k civilians died during the Korean War due to carpet bombing.

In a perfect world he'd be judged, but this is not a perfect world. Might makes right.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by klaz
I voted yes, but its never going to happen. The majority of US presidents have made decisions or been responsible for extreme results that involve massive civilian casualties. But they've never been pulled up on it. For example, I never knew this but saw it last night on the History channel, that 200k civilians died during the Korean War due to carpet bombing.

In a perfect world he'd be judged, but this is not a perfect world. Might makes right.

Klaz, can you think of a situation where he might be tried? Now something serious would have to happen. I dunno, something like finding his signature on a document approving prisioner torture . But seriously, I think if something terrible happened (a great deal of terrbile things have already happened) that was so blatently wrong and his name was directly involved then action would have to be taken.

Nick

But seriously, I think if something terrible happened (a great deal of terrbile things have already happened) that was so blatently wrong and his name was directly involved then action would have to be taken.

Doubtful. He'd just claim that he performed the act under the mantle of the Presidency and under American Law couldn't be tried. And if American Law couldn't touch him, no American government would be likely to allow international law to interfere.

The US is extremely proud. We all know that. They'd never release one of the Presidents to be tried for War Crimes. It would tarnish their "image".

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/koreagenocide/HiddenHistory.html

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/koreagenocide/NoGunRiMassacre.html

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/koreagenocide/KoreaBioWarfare.html





a tad... rabid at times, but an interesting site all the same..

claidheamh

Cheney

Rumsfeld

Ashcroft

Rice

leeroybrown

Bush will never be tried as a war criminal. As a US president he is legally protected under American law. Internationally, the US have avoided signing up to war crimes courts, etc. Also, much as many of the major EU leaders despise the current Bush administration they can't afford (financially) the burden involved in Europe pursuing it's defence policy without US support. Theres only so far they are willing to go against him.

There are quite a few individual things the US did in Iraq that probably constitute war crimes but I don't think these would warrant bringing him to trial. I would view Guantanamo Bay as being a far more serious problem. However, I would view the US motivations for going into Iraq as being highly suspect. If the true reasonings could be proven then there would be a large case to answer.

The only way that any US president could be tried for war crimes, would be from two possible situations. 1) America loses its military might, and finds itself comparable with a Middle eastern army. 2) The American People, (and the military) judge the case to be so.

Hitler (suicide I know), and his followers were only tried when his armies were defeated. Stalin was never convicted due to his armies, N.Korea is the same etc etc etc. AS long as the US remains such a military power, no American president will be under threat by foreign legal systems.

Neither is going to happen. At least not for the next twenty years or more.

arcadegame2004

Whether you agreed with the war or not - and the vast majority in this country clearly didn't - simply going to war - even without provocation - does not on its own constitute legal grounds for war-crimes charges.

If Bush ORDERED air-strikes or killings/torture of innocent civilians and/or POW's then it's a different matter, but so far there isn't enough evidence (at least not publicly availably evidence) to lay charges against Bush in a court of law, international or otherwise.

Going to war is not, on its own, a war-crime under international-law. It may have been an illegal war, but that on it's own does not make it a war-crime.

MeatProduct

Right, looks like Bush is to be tried so. I'll send this poll off to the UN and try and get the trial started .

Nick

Sparks

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
so far there isn't enough evidence (at least not publicly availably evidence) to lay charges against Bush in a court of law, international or otherwise.

Was a case not brought against Bush last year over the conduct of the war?

Devilman

Oh wouldn't it be nice if he was tried...

I think going to war on the basis that a country "might" have WMDs was bad enough, but to say that Iraq did when there was no evidence was inexcusable. Why not just tell the truth.... "WE WANTED THE OIL !!!!"

oh wait..then there'd be no " coalition of the willing"... 2000 monkeys from Morrocco to detonate landmines always comes in handy !

But alas he won't be tried as arcadegame so rightly pointed out ( damn you and your common sense lol!! )..

And this in a country where they brought a president to court because he had sexual relations with THAT woman :dunno:

arcadegame2004

Was a case not brought against Bush last year over the conduct of the war?

Dunno. But if there was it obviously didn't succeed because otherwise we would have heard about it. Okay then, I modify my comments somewhat. There is clearly an absence of sufficient evidence that he ordered or condoned intentional killings of innocent civilia, or the torture of prisoners, though whether Rumsfeld had a hand in what happened in Abu Ghraib may be another matter.

sovtek

Originally posted by klaz
For example, I never knew this but saw it last night on the History channel, that 200k civilians died during the Korean War due to carpet bombing.

Are you also aware of around 4 million in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

sovtek

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Klaz, can you think of a situation where he might be tried? Now something serious would have to happen. I dunno, something like finding his signature on a document approving prisioner torture . But seriously, I think if something terrible happened (a great deal of terrbile things have already happened) that was so blatently wrong and his name was directly involved then action would have to be taken.

Nick

They were interviewing a guy from the International Bar Association on South African TV yesterday in regards the trail of Saddam.
He was saying that Saddam didn't have to directly order the atrocities he's cited for but to have known about them and not stopped them is also a war crime or crime against humanity. He called it Command Responsibility. There were around 1000 Japanese commanders after WW2 hung for the same thing. Even though some of them had lost all contact with their troops.
Now if that applies to Saddam and the Japanese. I wonder why it doesn't apply to Bush or Blair?

sovtek

Originally posted by leeroybrown
Bush will never be tried as a war criminal. As a US president he is legally protected under American law.

Actually the US Constitution binds America to all treaties it signs. That means that the US is bound by the UN Charter as well as the Geneva Convention.

Tommy Vercetti

Shouldn't Clinton be tried also for not lifting UN sanctions which lead to at least half a million children in Iraq dying? Or do we like him too much?

Bush is never going to be tried for anything, get over it.

Sparks

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
Shouldn't Clinton be tried also for not lifting UN sanctions which lead to at least half a million children in Iraq dying? Or do we like him too much?

Two points:
1) Half a million children were not killed by sanctions on Iraq. Look it up. Seriously.
2) Clinton shouldn't be tried for not lifting UN sanctions. He should be tried for not stopping a genocide in Rwanda because there were no US interests at stake.

arcadegame2004

Clinton shouldn't be tried for not lifting UN sanctions. He should be tried for not stopping a genocide in Rwanda because there were no US interests at stake.

And if he had done that no doubt the usual crowd would have been out on the streets condemning Clinton as a "war criminal". After all, look what happened when they intervened to save Kosovo Albanians from Milosevic's deathsquads, all those posters put arounf by SF etc. saying "Stop the War". I personally believe that while generally speaking war is not a good thing that it can be justified if it is intended to end a genocide.

Sparks

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
And if he had done that no doubt the usual crowd would have been out on the streets condemning Clinton as a "war criminal".

Highly unlikely, since all Clinton had to do was do nothing. The UN peacekeeping force was already in Rwanda and was begging for permission to step in and stop the massacres - and were prevented from doing so by the US's actions in the UNSC, actions which were mandated by Clinton's PPD 21.

In other words, he didn't have to do anything to stop the genocide but let the UN do it's job. Instead, the UN was interfered with and an entire people were massacred.

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by klaz
I never knew this but saw it last night on the History channel, that 200k civilians died during the Korean War due to carpet bombing.

Well it was a war and it was a UN action wasn't it, so it's allright then isn't it Just wondering about that as people are always going on about the UN being some kind of shining light.

In a perfect world he'd be judged, but this is not a perfect world. Might makes right.

Very true unfortunately

bonkey

Originally posted by sovtek
Now if that applies to Saddam and the Japanese. I wonder why it doesn't apply to Bush or Blair?

Because they're the victors, I guess.

jc

MeatProduct

As mentioned earlier I would have to say that Bush should be implicated if he did nothing to stop all the crimes that have been commited by those under him. As the supremo death-master general of the US forces he can stop anything that his forces are doing.

Nick

bonkey

Originally posted by MeatProduct
As mentioned earlier I would have to say that Bush should be implicated if he did nothing to stop all the crimes that have been commited by those under him.

In a modern trial (i.e. lets not drag Nuremburg into this as a "but look at what happened half a century ago" comparison), I believe you'd have to show that he was - at the very least - aware of the issues at the time.



jc

Well it was a war and it was a UN action wasn't it, so it's allright then isn't it Just wondering about that as people are always going on about the UN being some kind of shining light.

I think you'll see from my posts that I'm slightly skeptical of the UN capability to continue its current role. As long as the security council exist, the UN is not a organisation capable of dealing with any form of threat. Too much crap going on there.

I take the stance that the commander of the forces involved is responsible for the actions of their own troops. All combat troops these days are issued with "rules of engagement". (Usually minimise civilian casualties, fire only when fired upon, etc). Breaking of those rules, is a break in their discipline, and training. The commanders bear a responsibility for allowing those troops into a situation where they can cause harm.

I don't know abt Bush being pulled for US Troop activities, but their commanding officers, or the general in charge should have been pulled up for charges. They bear the responibility for the actions. Oddly enough it was the Allies in WW2 that introduced that concept. Odd that they've forgotten it.