Could Bush stand trial as a war criminal?

.
Terror War Violates International Law

The United States has not only violated established international laws in its prosecution of the War on Terror, it has in fact committed war crimes on a grand scale. The crimes that have been committed by this state have been deliberate and premeditated to the point that the U.S. has refused to support the International Criminal Court because the state knew it was committing or about to commit criminal acts.

Count one: The U.S. has waged a war of aggression which is considered by the Geneva Conventions to be a grave breach that is punishable by death. Looking at the Nuremburg Tribunal precedent, it is stated that to start a war of aggression is the supreme international crime. According to the Geneva Conventions, which the U.S. has recently labeled as ‘just a quaint old law that they no longer need to be concerned with’ one of the few acceptable reasons to partake in a military action against another state is the need of self defense. However, the U.S. attacked the sovereign state of Iraq which had made no move against the U.S. and was absolutely no threat to it. Premeditation on the part of the U.S. became apparent with the release of the Downing Street Memos which highlighted the fact that the U.S. was actively looking for an excuse to attack Iraq and was in fact in the process of ‘fixing the evidence’ in order to give itself the appearance of just cause. Further evidence that was to come out during the War on Terror would prove that the U.S. lied not only to its Congress and its own people, but also to the United Nations in order to start an unnecessary war of aggression. This war was a direct violation of established international law from the beginning.

Count two: The illegal detention and torture of prisoners and the denying of prisoners to trial is also an international war crime. Numerous cases of torture by the U.S. have come to light and have established a widespread pattern of abuse that is sanctioned at the highest levels of the U.S. government. These violations are a breach not only of the Geneva Conventions, but are also a breach of their own Constitution. Furthermore, amid mounting evidence of torture violations by the U.S., the Senate voted to restore the military’s traditional prohibition against the torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners by a 90-9 vote. However, G.W. Bush, President of the United States wasted no time in entering a highly questionable signing statement to the effect that he will obey it at his own discretion. This action has caused many to believe that Bush now sees himself as above the law and can do whatever he wishes as though he were a monarch instead of a president. The Senate’s vote did little to address the growing problem of the U.S. renditioning prisoners to secret prisons in other parts of the world, where it is suspected that even worse violations of torture and inhumane treatment continue to occur.

Count three: The collective punishment of towns violates the Geneva Conventions. After some of the residents of Fallujah killed four ‘foreign contractors’ who in reality were highly paid mercenaries, The U.S. attacked the town, killing hundreds of civilians as punishment, not once but twice, upon the orders of President Bush himself. The few news reporters who survived these sieges have produced evidence and testaments from witnesses that civilians and non-combatants were deliberately targeted by troops that were willing to shoot anything that moved including women and children. Attacking U.S. helicopters chased down fleeing families in the streets to kill them, despite the fact that the deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. So many people were killed that the soccer field became a graveyard that was completely filled. Furthermore, the targeting of civilians has not been confined to Fallujah and is prevalent over the entire country of Iraq. There has also been brought to light the use of internationally banned chemical weapons by the U.S. against the citizens of Fallujah including white phosphorus which is an incendiary along the line of napalm. Numerous bodies, including those of women and children have been found to be burned clear down to the bone. It has also been discovered that the U.S. has been using munitions all over the extent of Iraq that have a high content of depleted uranium which is so radioactive that the land will remain contaminated for thousands of years. Apparently when the U.S. couldn’t find Saddam’s hypothetical WMD, they wasted no time at all in bringing their own. According to the Nuremburg Principles what is being done by the U.S. in their War on Terror is a crime against humanity that is punishable by death.

(to be continued)
.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by ShadowEyes]

.
(continued)

Not content with the suffering, death, damage, and destruction they have spread in their wake, the U.S. is about to compound its illegal war crimes and is actively making threats against its next intended victim, Iran. In recent months the U.S. has begun to threaten Iran with a nuclear attack, even though the making of the threat itself is a violation of the U.N. Charter of International Law. The U.S. has accused Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons, even though the IAEA has reported finding no evidence to substantiate the accusation. However, considering the fact that the U.S. has made so many threats against Iran it would not be surprising to many if they did decide to try to obtain a nuclear weapon in an attempt to deter an out of control U.S. Iran, along with other nations of the world have come to feel the need of self protection from the U.S. which has led to global insecurity and could well lead to a massive nuclear escalation. There is a growing fear that if the U.S. does not cease its aggressive actions they could set off WWIII. The entire world has an interest in enforcing the laws on wars of aggression because as a superpower, whatever action the U.S. takes has the potential to effect the rest of the planet.

There are certain actions that are against international law and are war crimes regardless of whether they are committed by Saddam Hussein or by George Bush, neither of whom can be permitted to place themselves above the law. In its prosecution of the War on Terror the U.S, has, in its own right, become a terrorist state in the eyes of the rest of the world. Neither Iraq nor Iran has attacked anyone, but the U.S. sure has.


Geneva Conventions

Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950

The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials

Founder of Delta Force denounces Neocons

U.S. war crimes

Extensive U.S. war crimes in Iraq

Refugees tell of rising anger in Fallujah

The road to Nuremberg

When war crimes are impossible

Condi, war crimes and the press

The secret Downing Street memo

Dead cities: The Fallujah option in Iraq

.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by ShadowEyes]

why are you even posting about this??? Bush is a good president, get off his ass...

Originally posted by Snazuolu
why are you even posting about this??? Bush is a good president, get off his ass...

Shadow eyes has posted their opinion, just like you, got a problem with that use the complaint button. Other wise add the to the topic of the thread instead of trying to derail it.

ShadowEyes
I live to see the day these Neo-Cons are hung out to dry, but I have the feeling that money will talk and the Bushyites will walk.

You have voted ShadowEyes for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

[edit on 2/8/2006 by Sauron]

Why is Bush still the prez?
Why is he allowed to continue what he is doing?

Where is the law NOW, are they waiting for when his presidency is over so the charges will stick?
By then it will be too late, the damage will be done.

You keep hearing, war crimes this, impeachment that, yet the damage by Bush continues.
I guess if Hitler was the prez. he'd have a real field day!
The Bush regime protects it's own butt from the American people quite effectively I must say.

I have to agree with Shadow... Bush is a war criminal.. His actions and the actions of the USA have changed the world forever, everyone is afraid of everyone else.. He has committed blatant crimes against humanity... IF he and his administration were responsible for 9/11 then he has committed the worst crimes ever imaginable against the world and his own people....

Innocent people have died... There are no WMD's.. And the world will never be the same.. These thing's alone should be crimes...

My personal opinion of Bush is he's a sock sniffer.... If anything was going to be done.. It would have been, there is nothing going to be done, no actions toward him..

Could he stand trial? No.... Should He.. YES!.. But we all know it wont happen...

[edit on 2-8-2006 by Ox]

Has anyone notice he is not saying the term "Weapons of Mass Distruction" and that now he is using the term "Weapons of Mass Murder." I do not have all the technical information but i do believe that War does not bring peace, in of fact that is a oxymoron.
We say we want world peace way to often. If there should be a world war3 and I believe we are getting a little to close to that situation. Then should the nukes be brought out by everyone "all the countries" we will have world peace cause none of us will be around anymore and the world will be real peaceful.
I not only do believe that he could stand trial as a waar criminal, but that he should be accountable for the actions he has taken and continues to take.
Lets just all get real and admit that fighting whether in the home or cross countries just causes more anger among people, evern in our own countriesl
Thats just how I feel about it all.

Originally posted by ShadowEyes
However, the U.S. attacked the sovereign state of Iraq which had made no move against the U.S. and was absolutely no threat to it.

I am not condoning the actions taken by U.S. against Iraq but the world is changing in ways that would never have occured to people years ago. Perhaps it is time to rethink some of our previous perceptions and perhaps recognize that a country haboring terrorists ought to be considered a threat. While making such a change to our current paradigm would and should require substantial consideration, it is a situation in which we may inevitably find ourselves.

Originally posted by ShadowEyes
Count two: The illegal detention and torture of prisoners and the denying of prisoners to trial is also an international war crime.

Agreed. While it may be deemed necessary to detain persons 'of interest'. They should never the less be afforded the same treatment we would expect if our own were detained in a foreign country.

Originally posted by ShadowEyes
Count three:

Will reserve judgement on this one. I must admit that I am unfamiliar with several of the examples provided.

Originally posted by ShadowEyes
However, considering the fact that the U.S. has made so many threats against Iran it would not be surprising to many if they did decide to try to obtain a nuclear weapon in an attempt to deter an out of control U.S. Iran, along with other nations of the world have come to feel the need of self protection from the U.S. which has led to global insecurity and could well lead to a massive nuclear escalation.

Agreed. At some point, countries will begin to push back against.

I sincerely hope the next President of the U.S. confronts such issues in a diplomatic, yet firm, manner. However, I highly doubt Bush would stand trial as a war criminal.

EDIT: Spelling



[edit on 8/2/2006 by DCFusion]

Snazuolu, people like you are Israel's worst enemy. All you are doing is fostering the hate. Shadoweyes, great post. You may also find this of interest.

www.counterpunch.org...

Originally posted by Snazuolu
why are you even posting about this??? Bush is a good president, get off his ass...

There are a great many people who do not agree that bush is a good president, these people for starters. I can provide many more.

West Point grads against the war

West Point Grads Against The War

Instilled by the Cadet Honor System with a fundamental, longstanding respect for truth, we graduates of the United States Military Academy believe that honor is a basic attribute of character. That we are no longer cadets is irrelevant. We stand appalled by the deceitful behavior of the government of the United States and, in particular, its widely known malefactors. Lying, cheating, stealing, delivering evasive statements and quibbling not only has demeaned these deceivers and the United States of America, but has placed vast numbers of innocent people in deadly peril. We will not serve the lies.

The war in Iraq was launched illegally. It has since killed tens of thousands of innocents, causing incalculable damage to Iraq and the Iraqi people, as well as the reputation of the United States of America. We will not serve the lies.

When we West Point graduates took our commissioning oath of office one past June morning, we swore to protect our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The deceitful connivances of the current administration have resulted in a war catastrophic to our nation’s interests: politically, economically, militarily, and morally. We now stand to protect our nation from these deceivers. We will not serve their lies.

.

Originally posted by Sauron
You have voted ShadowEyes for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Wow, thanks. I think that's the first one I've ever gotten.

.

So uh, there can't ever be a war.. because any war is criminal? And you can no longer capture prisioners in the event that an ilegal war did break out because that.. is.. also against the law.. so you shoot the illegal prisoners you capture during the ilegal war and commit ilegal murder for execution of ilegal soldiers in a war you did not start but are in fact partisipating in because someone broke the law, and maybe your better then the instigator so use of exessive force is also against the law in ilegal wars where all parties are guilty for involvment? You could release the ilegal soldiers back into the illegal war so they go hide in a town, which apparently is not illegal so they can do that, where they shoot at you but since your the bigger guy n all it is illegal to shoot back, but you do anyways and a few civilians die, which is illegal even though you did not want to do that you would rather have a major face to face illegal battle onyour side of the border (because it is illegal to be on their side) but they wont do that since hiding amoung civilians is legal, so you commit more war crimes for defending that really isnt defending because the bigger guy doesnt really need defensive forces moving offensivly and you punish the whole town, because the other side wouldn't come fight an ilegal battle. Well the sentence should be death... for the entire American leadership and officer corps and leaders at pentagon, president, vice president, his entire cabinent.. because someone died in war. Now I do want to be sure, I got that all correct? If not, please by all means correct me.

Originally posted by Snazuolu
why are you even posting about this??? Bush is a good president, get off his ass...

Agreed it's a "witch hunt" conceived by the ant-Bush crowd ever since pre-election 2000. All in revenge mode since the Clinton scandals, and all extremely disgruntled since He won the election in 2000 AND 2004. Time for them to get over it. "Clinton was impeached so lets impeach Bush" mentality, nothing more.

Thanks for the link. Even though I have already seen it, there will be others reading this thread who have not. It fits here and will add to the thread.
.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
So uh, there can't ever be a war.. because any war is criminal? And you can no longer capture prisioners in the event that an ilegal war did break out because that.. is.. also against the law.. so you shoot the illegal prisoners you capture during the ilegal war and commit ilegal murder for execution of ilegal soldiers in a war you did not start but are in fact partisipating in because someone broke the law, and maybe your better then the instigator so use of exessive force is also against the law in ilegal wars where all parties are guilty for involvment? You could release the ilegal soldiers back into the illegal war so they go hide in a town, which apparently is not illegal so they can do that, where they shoot at you but since your the bigger guy n all it is illegal to shoot back, but you do anyways and a few civilians die, which is illegal even though you did not want to do that you would rather have a major face to face illegal battle onyour side of the border (because it is illegal to be on their side) but they wont do that since hiding amoung civilians is legal, so you commit more war crimes for defending that really isnt defending because the bigger guy doesnt really need defensive forces moving offensivly and you punish the whole town, because the other side wouldn't come fight an ilegal battle. Well the sentence should be death... for the entire American leadership and officer corps and leaders at pentagon, president, vice president, his entire cabinent.. because someone died in war. Now I do want to be sure, I got that all correct? If not, please by all means correct me.

Normally, I would say go back and read the links provided, especially those dealing with Nuremberg and the Geneva Conventions.

However, there are some who will never see or learn because they are much more comfortable wearing their blinders.

All that you said above would have never happened if an attack had not been made against a country that did NOTHING to us. We are allowed to go to war if we are DEFENDING ourselves, but that was NOT the case with Iraq. Our move against Iraq was based on aggression not self-defense and we shouldn't be there to begin with. If we weren't there, we wouldn't be getting shot at.

It might surprise you to hear that Iraq has just as much right to self-defense as we do. We attacked them and they are fighting back. What's so surprising about that?
.

Heh, convict President Bush for crimes that are roughly similar to what his predecessors have done in the past decades? Makes you wonder if this is just another anti-Bush thread.

Originally posted by Purgatory

Originally posted by Snazuolu
why are you even posting about this??? Bush is a good president, get off his ass...

Agreed it's a "witch hunt" conceived by the ant-Bush crowd ever since pre-election 2000. All in revenge mode since the Clinton scandals, and all extremely disgruntled since He won the election in 2000 AND 2004. Time for them to get over it. "Clinton was impeached so lets impeach Bush" mentality, nothing more.

Yeah, that's it
You don't really think us anti-bush people really think that, do you? ... if you do, you are really in the dark.

Come see the light.

That's really overly simplistic to be even considered a reason, don't be a troll.

I already have my fill of broken dreams.

Originally posted by ShadowEyes

Originally posted by Rockpuck
So uh, there can't ever be a war.. because any war is criminal? And you can no longer capture prisioners in the event that an ilegal war did break out because that.. is.. also against the law.. so you shoot the illegal prisoners you capture during the ilegal war and commit ilegal murder for execution of ilegal soldiers in a war you did not start but are in fact partisipating in because someone broke the law, and maybe your better then the instigator so use of exessive force is also against the law in ilegal wars where all parties are guilty for involvment? You could release the ilegal soldiers back into the illegal war so they go hide in a town, which apparently is not illegal so they can do that, where they shoot at you but since your the bigger guy n all it is illegal to shoot back, but you do anyways and a few civilians die, which is illegal even though you did not want to do that you would rather have a major face to face illegal battle onyour side of the border (because it is illegal to be on their side) but they wont do that since hiding amoung civilians is legal, so you commit more war crimes for defending that really isnt defending because the bigger guy doesnt really need defensive forces moving offensivly and you punish the whole town, because the other side wouldn't come fight an ilegal battle. Well the sentence should be death... for the entire American leadership and officer corps and leaders at pentagon, president, vice president, his entire cabinent.. because someone died in war. Now I do want to be sure, I got that all correct? If not, please by all means correct me.

Normally, I would say go back and read the links provided, especially those dealing with Nuremberg and the Geneva Conventions.

However, there are some who will never see or learn because they are much more comfortable wearing their blinders.

All that you said above would have never happened if an attack had not been made against a country that did NOTHING to us. We are allowed to go to war if we are DEFENDING ourselves, but that was NOT the case with Iraq. Our move against Iraq was based on aggression not self-defense and we shouldn't be there to begin with. If we weren't there, we wouldn't be getting shot at.

It might surprise you to hear that Iraq has just as much right to self-defense as we do. We attacked them and they are fighting back. What's so surprising about that?
.

UH, well I would hope they would fight back.. kind of the natural thing to do eh?

Lemme ask ya sumtin..

What makes a war legal? And what makes a war illegal... and who made the rules of war? And if a rule is broken do both sides stop .. hold a trial.. then carry on again?

Perhaps we should go back to lining 25 yards apart and pulling the trigger. So much more humane right?

You claim the war was not for our defense.. well that depends who you ask because I know that there would be a lot of people really pissed off if we suddenly got cut off from oil, or say our economy collapses. If the war was over oil and is now keeping the economy afloat then isn't it "legal" to aggressively destroy smaller nations to continue that economy for the survival of our way of life?

Or lets assume that Bush truly did think Saddam was a threat, if he himself truly thought it was a threat and acted on it and not just to act for acts sake then isn't that a legal context to war.. because he may really believe it? Who makes the facts?

The stupidest thing I ever heard of was putting rules into war. Honestly, no one follows them, well except the Swiss but they don't actually fight wars because they prefer to put man power into keeping stolen plunder safe. But for the rest of the world, who follows them? Name one richeous nation state that follows em to a T. Europeans fighting Europeans it sure sounds like a good idea huh! They oh so civilized, but no that is ignorant I am very sorry, I forgot everyone is civilized and that Hezbollah keep a portrait of the Geneva Convention signers in their mosque/barracks/weapon storage facility all in one, on the wall. They also carry handy Geneva guideline booklets with them, fits neatly in the pocket I hear, so that if they where to ever cross sovereign borders and kidnap unsuspecting soldiers they know how to feed and care for them, make sure no one gets anything short of a tiny scratch. Such good guys huh.

War is chaos, it is destruction, it is mangling little children in rubble, it is the death of innocents, it does not regard the weak and elderly, it does not spare houses and apartments, it does not abide by rules, it does not act in a civil manor. War has and forever will be an event where the true animal side of our selves is revealed, kill, kill, kill and try not to be killed. Why is it so hard to understand this? That it isn't a game, that there is no rules, that signing a piece of paper means jack @#@% to the men fighting. So easy to sit at a computer and say war should have the same rules as say a paintball game. Tis reality.

by ShadowEyes:

1- The crimes that have been committed by this state;
2- "the "war against Iraq?" ....deliberate and premeditated;
3- the U.S. has refused to support the International Criminal Court
4- The U.S. .... has waged a war of aggression which is considered by the Geneva Conventions to be a grave breach.."
5- the U.S. has recently labeled the Geneva Convention as ‘just a quaint old law",
6- the U.S. attacked the sovereign state of Iraq;
7- the Downing Street Memos;
8- ‘fixing the evidence’ in order to give itself the appearance of just cause. Further evidence that was to come out during the War on Terror would prove that the U.S. lied not only to its Congress and its own people, but also to the United Nations in order to start an unnecessary war of aggression.
9- The illegal detention and torture of prisoners and the denying of prisoners to trial is also an international war crime;
10- the growing problem of the U.S. renditioning prisoners to secret prisons;
11- The collective punishment of towns violates the Geneva Conventions;
12- The few news reporters who survived these sieges have produced evidence and testaments from witnesses that civilians and non-combatants were deliberately targeted by troops that were willing to shoot anything that moved including women and children. Attacking U.S. helicopters chased down fleeing families in the streets to kill them; So many people were killed that the soccer field became a graveyard that was completely filled;
13- use of internationally banned chemical weapons by the U.S. against the citizens of Fallujah including white phosphorus;
14- depleted uranium which is so radioactive that the land will remain contaminated for thousands of years;
15- when the U.S. couldn’t find Saddam’s hypothetical WMD, they wasted no time at all in bringing their own;
16- the U.S. has begun to threaten Iran with a nuclear attack;
17- if the U.S. does not cease its aggressive actions they could set off WWIII;
18- the U.S, has, in its own right, become a terrorist state in the eyes of the rest of the world.

REPLIES: OF COURSE this is just another Bush bashing, and is merely rehashing things that have taken up much space on other threads. It's just a desperate attempt to find those who agree with him (instead of just reading all the other threads so his rant is somehow validated.

1- America is not a "state."
2- It was a war against Saddam, not Iraq, and the premeditation claim has been disproven.
3- Clinton and Bush did not agree with the Int'l CC because it would make part of our Constitution invalid; and, it allows no real rights to those accused.
4- The UN sanctioned the; get over it.
5- The GC DOES NOT apply to those detained, because they do not act/fight in accordance with GC requisites.
6- Iraq, under Saddam, was NOT a sovereign state, as it is the freedom of a countries peoples that determine it's sovereignty.
7- The Downing Street memos did not prove that; I read them all, and the legal experts agree.
8- Every single intelligence agency in the world said the WMD's were there; there were no lies; WMD's were not the first, 'nor the only reason to get rid of Saddam.
9- The detention is not illegal; torture???? have your girlfriend play naked twister with you, or have her put her panties on your head; That's torture???
10-