Should Mr G.W.Bush be charged with War Crimes

[Damo1977]

Basically the question speaks for itself............But this ain't no anti-American thread, this is being discussed around the world.

MR George Bush went against the UN vote and invaded a sovereign nation, and than ran a prison camp called 'Guantanamo' off shore which never mind the activities in the camp is still illegal against the Geneva Convention.
Mr Bush mentions that those held in 'Guantanamo' are enemy combatants, so legally they should stand under the Geneva Convention and not locked in cells like Cassius Clay.

Before you vote I would just like to say, now that the Geneva Convention has been broken by the Mr Bush, I would like to thank him, for he has shown the way for all Western enemies to treat US and Allied prisoners of war. I must say thank you again.

*editors note*
I am the first to admit Mr Bush does believe he is doing the right and helpful thing for the USA and the Western world. Maybe he is maybe he ain't. For who really knows? Least Mr Bush, and the people of the USA, believe in the same values as me. I actually believe if you took him away from politics and met him on face value he would be a kind and decent bloke.
This post was not meant to be a offensive post about USA. Its just he is the Commander in Chief of the American armed forces, so basically he is responsible for what goes on in the forces like the prisoner abuses (not terrorists) in Iraq, and the 'Illegal Invasion' of Iraq and even Guantanamo.

[August]

Originally Posted by Damo1977

I would like to thank him, for he has shown the way for all Western enemies to treat US and Allied prisoners of war. I must say thank you again.

You mean as opposed to torturing them Hanoi Hilton style or beheading them al quaeda style?

[Kapitan]

its against the UN and international law therefore he can be charged with war crimes

[August]

What UN vote did George Bush go against again?

[Type941]

Techinically - yes, as he attacked a sovereign nation as an agressor, and never proved it to the UN that there was a thread.

Anyone watched the Factor the other night with O'Reilly vs. Donhaue - that was a fire cracker. O'Reilly totally lost his cool, was very surprising, perhaps he overdid it. (the debate was pretty much head on Bush vs America)

[August]

Originally Posted by August

What UN vote did George Bush go against again?

Again what UN vote did George Bush go against when we attacked Saddam?

Could it be the usual suspects can't find one since it doesn't exist?

[Gorduz]

Originally Posted by August

You mean as opposed to torturing them Hanoi Hilton style or beheading them al quaeda style?

Thats not the point, saddam i charged with war crimes. And I'm pretty damn certian that any al quaeda member doing any beheading will be charged as well. G.W. Bushs unprovoked invasion of Iraq and US treatment av guantanamo could perhaps give grounds for a charge. But still the crimes are not at all in the same propotion as many others.
The question then stads, can you brake the law if you only do i a bit?

[Kapitan]

goerge bush can be charged with crimes against humanity that would be the biggest charge against him

[August]

Originally Posted by Gorduz

Thats not the point, saddam i charged with war crimes. And I'm pretty damn certian that any al quaeda member doing any beheading will be charged as well. G.W. Bushs unprovoked invasion of Iraq and US treatment av guantanamo could perhaps give grounds for a charge. But still the crimes are not at all in the same propotion as many others.
The question then stads, can you brake the law if you only do i a bit?

If the question is if he could be charged then the answer is yes, of course he could. Anyone can be charged with anything. Could he be convicted? No, i don't believe so.

[SUBMAN1]

Don't get me started.

A. Mr. Bush is taking the soft approach to prisoners of war by keeping them prisoner. If you want to really follow the geneva convention, they should all be shot to death for being enemy combatants who are out of uniform.

B. Mr. Bush did not start a brand new war, but went to war and removed a cease fire in place since 1991.

Now why the hell are you trying to start a flame war here Damo1977?

-S

[Type941]

Originally Posted by August

What UN vote did George Bush go against again?

Not a vote, but a law. International Law. Chapter 7 of United Nations Chapter, where a nation is authorized to use force against another is done under one of the two conditions: either in self-defence (article 51) or under the recommendation of security council (article 42). The US is party to that agreement, so needless to say, it either follows it, or it breaks it.

First, The US failed to pass a resolution thourgh the Security Council which would allow to attack Iraq - simply because half the council was against it, so the US never made the vote and pulled the resoltion. They wanted to call Iraq as a breach of disarmament resolution (like they kept making WMDs) I believe, but China, France, Russia and and some other coutnries who did not have Veto power but were members of SC I think disagreed that Iraq was in breach of it. So the SC option failed. They could not get any coalition beyond Uk, Poland, Spain to name the ones I recall. What they did say (americans) is that since iraq was not living up to their preivious agreements, it made it ok to use military force against them. Furthermore, they said they could prove legally that Iraq was making WMD. In fact, the same case was made in Downing Street for the Brits, and we all know how that turned out later.

Second, The option on self-defence was argued based on US right to self defence, as Iraq was presumed connected to AlQuaeda and therefore was a threat to US national security. This is the bit of the famous Powell speach when he told the UN that Iraq was a grave danger and harbouring terrorists - base for that was the presumed meetings between some militia connected to Zarkawi (sp?) and Iraqi officials previosuly.

Of course, the war started as Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum of 2 days and demanded him to step down, and after that the bombs started to fall.

So the only bit you can argue is what international Law says about the use of preemptive military force unilaterally by a sinlge nation, and that bit I don't know much about.

Than of course there is the international humanitarian law that governs how countries fight each other and aimed at protecting the civilian population. Now it's that law I think that Bush might have troubles with (I think the Geneva convention is a part of that).

realistically though, Bush would need to order the army to carpet bomb all of ... let's say Basra, without any order for evacuation or warning. Based on that, he'd probably qualify to sit next to the likes of Milosevic. However I think he's not that stupid, and the legal breaches he made are first of all will be argued off by the best litigation nation (US) as he'll say he was protecting his people. Really, calling for Bush to trial is like mice deciding that the cat should go away. You all know what the cat would say to that, right? (given cats could talk, but that's not the point :|\ ) Meoww.

History will decide, and so will the American people. I have serious doubts he'd be hailed as the great American president 30 years from now. But that's just my opinion.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Type941

Not a vote, but a law. International Law. Chapter 7 of United Nations Chapter, where a nation is authorized to use force against another is done under one of the two conditions: either in self-defence (article 51) or under the recommendation of security council (article 42). The US is party to that agreement, so needless to say, it either follows it, or it breaks it.

First, The US failed to pass a resolution thourgh the Security Council which would allow to attack Iraq - simply because half the council was against it, so the US never made the vote and pulled the resoltion. They wanted to call Iraq as a breach of disarmament resolution (like they kept making WMDs) I believe, but China, France, Russia and and some other coutnries who did not have Veto power but were members of SC I think disagreed that Iraq was in breach of it. So the SC option failed. They could not get any coalition beyond Uk, Poland, Spain to name the ones I recall. What they did say (americans) is that since iraq was not living up to their preivious agreements, it made it ok to use military force against them. Furthermore, they said they could prove legally that Iraq was making WMD. In fact, the same case was made in Downing Street for the Brits, and we all know how that turned out later.

Second, The option on self-defence was argued based on US right to self defence, as Iraq was presumed connected to AlQuaeda and therefore was a threat to US national security. This is the bit of the famous Powell speach when he told the UN that Iraq was a grave danger and harbouring terrorists - base for that was the presumed meetings between some militia connected to Zarkawi (sp?) and Iraqi officials previosuly.

Of course, the war started as Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum of 2 days and demanded him to step down, and after that the bombs started to fall.

So the only bit you can argue is what international Law says about the use of preemptive military force unilaterally by a sinlge nation, and that bit I don't know much about.

Than of course there is the international humanitarian war that governs how countries fight each other and aimed at protecting the civilian population. Now it's that law I think that Bush might have troubles with (I think the Geneva convention is a part of that).

realistically though, Bush would need to order the army to carpet bomb all of ... let's say Basra, without any order for evacuation or warning. Based on that, he'd probably qualify to sit next to the likes of Milosevic. However I think he's not that stupid, and the legal breaches he made are first of all will be argued off by the best litigation nation (US) as he'll say he was protecting his people. Really, calling for Bush to trial is like mice deciding that the cat should go away. You all know what the cat would say to that, right? (given cats could talk, but that's not the point :|\ ) Meoww.

History will decide, and so will the American people. I have serious doubts he'd be hailed as the great American president 30 years from now. But that's just my opinion.

You forget - The UN gave permission when the war was started in 1990. So how is it that he didn't have permission again?

-S

[MadMike]

Damo,
I suppose that makes us former and all active duty U.S. servicemen "war criminals" in your eyes (me especially since I worked on "weapons of mass destruction"!!! ).
Talk to me when all those SS and NKVD murderers are brought to justice for their atrocities during WWII. I sincerely doubt Russia is pursuing "war crimes" indictments against those who perpetrated the Katyn forest massacre of 4,000 Polish patriots, nor the abuses committed in the Gulag.
Say, what was that fellow's name (er, terrorist) who was living in Baghdad and assasinated by Uncle Saddam's henchmen?!?

Damo writes-

"...and than ran a prison camp called 'Guantanamo' off shore which never mind the activities in the camp is still illegal against the Geneva Convention."

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. The Geneva Convention applies only to prisoners of war of a recognized army. Read the provisions of Article 4 yourself.

I'm amazed that you insist that Bush is a "war criminal", while ignoring the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein. Typical anti-American socialist blather.

Yours, Mike

IYAAYAS!

Retired Imperialist Air Pirate

[August]

Originally Posted by Type941

History will decide, and so will the American people. I have serious doubts he'd be hailed as the great American president 30 years from now. But that's just my opinion.

I don't necessarily agree with your opinion about how history will see Bush, but overall it was a well thought out and interesting post.

[jumpy]

The UN gave permission when the war was started in 1990. So how is it that he didn't have permission again?

As I understood it, permission was granted to Bush Senior etc... because Saddam actually invaded another sovereign country- Kuwait. As it was this time, Iraq invaded no-one, or really posed any significant military threat to any other sovereign territory.
I supose it's reasonable to think that seeing as 'we' sold WMD's/technology to Saddam when he was an 'ally' it's conceivable to reach the conclusion that when Iraq leaders fell foul of fickle western diplomacy those same ppl/companies/powers that be were a tad worried about a pissed off dictator (whose midermeanours towards his own ppl were conveniently ignored while it suited us) with some badass weapons just itching for a place on the international stage.
Divide and Conquer - it's one of the oldest strategies in the book. If you want to start jumping at shadows, that is
I guess if the western powers had said "look, ok... we sold saddam some badass **** and now he's not our pal anymore, we kindof want it back 'cause we don't trust him that far" there would have been some explaining to do back home.
I have said before that people make choices based upon their concience or their pragmatism- I think maybe, selling a nutter dangerous weapons technology was one of those decisions that erred on the side of pragmatism

With all the conflicting so called 'reasons' for war with Iraq;
- securing oil.
- defending humanity from despots.
- hiding the truth and saving face over the sale of WMD's to a dictator.
I suppose liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam is as good as any. If only Blair, Bush and all the others had made this clear from the start, instead of peddling halftruths and speculatory reports concerning Saddams' timetable for launching a WMD attack, more folk might have been on side now and back when the case for war was being stated to the UN- As most were when coming to the defense of Kuwait. When you look at the reasons for war as stated by various world leaders, the inference has evolved from removing WMD's, to removing WMD manufacturing capability, to stamping out terrorism, it all starts to seem rather threadbare.
Kindof like this:
GB+TB- he's got wmds!!
World- well maybe he hasn't anymore, you have evidence to the contrary?
GB+TB- but he's a bad man! and stirrs up terrorism over here!
World- so you can't say for sure, or find any WMD's?
GB+TB- yer,butno,butyer,butno,it'sallhisfault'causetracys aidhewozandthatdon'tmatteranyway'causehesmellsandi sagay...
:rotfl:
Personally, I think Saddam had to go for Iraq to develop more fully in the world, but whichever way you look at it, it wasn't going to be pretty, or quick. And now that we have made our bed, we have to lie in it. Besides, the west is as much responsible for some of the trouble in the middle east today as some of the crazies who live there.
As to weather or not anyone broke international law, pfft name a county that hasn't when it suited their national interest.