George W. Bush should be charged with crimes against humanity as well

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

However, the United States, and indeed no US citizen, can be held accountable to the International Criminal Court. The US, and a number of other countries, rescinded their signature of the Rome Statute and refuses to participate in or recognize the International Criminal Court.

Furthermore, to attempt to force the US to recognize it, or to hold their citizens accountable to the ICC, is to impose another's will upon a sovereign nation, illegally. This is the same thing that many accuse the US of doing in Iraq, imposing foreign will upon another nation.

So, the US cannot be tried by the ICC. They are innocent until proven guilty in court. The court has no jurisdiction to judge, therefore they cannot be judged as committing an illegal act.

What part of this do you not understand Benevolent Heretic?

I'm not sure its a question of understanding it, more a question of why the US aligns itself on this position with countries such as - oddly - Saddam Husseins regime in Iraq, Cuba, Libya, North Korea and China.

Interestingly enough, the US cut $40million in aid to the Serbs because they were percieved not to have cooperated with the international courts enough in the case of Slobodan Milosevich - so its ok for other countries to be forced to go along with it, but not for the US to adopt it, which is kinda hypocritical don't you think?

Also the US justified the Iraq war as a breach of resolution 1441, mandated under international law by the United Nations Security Council.

The war is not/was not illegal.

Saddam was in violation of the terms agreed upon from the 1990-91 gulf war and hostilities resumed.

Technically we are still at war with North Korea, having only an armistice ineffect.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The Iraq war is illegal according to International Law. It was a war of aggression against a soverign nation that posed no threat.

What don't you understand?

Let's try this-

How does the UN judge and prosecute a crime like this? The same way as they did to Slobodan Milosevic, they try the actor(s) at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

However, the United States, and indeed no US citizen, can be held accountable to the International Criminal Court. The US, and a number of other countries, rescinded their signature of the Rome Statute and refuses to participate in or recognize the International Criminal Court.

Furthermore, to attempt to force the US to recognize it, or to hold their citizens accountable to the ICC, is to impose another's will upon a sovereign nation, illegally. This is the same thing that many accuse the US of doing in Iraq, imposing foreign will upon another nation.


So, the US cannot be tried by the ICC. They are innocent until proven guilty in court. The court has no jurisdiction to judge, therefore they cannot be judged as committing an illegal act.

What part of this do you not understand Benevolent Heretic?

Clinton is a signatory of the Rome Statute, you are absolutely right. They have not been ratified as a result they can't be tried or investigated for anything approved by the UN but they can for anything not approved by the UNSC.
Iraq was not approved by the UNSC..So therefore they can be tried.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
How does the UN judge and prosecute a crime like this?

So you do admit it's a crime, then. That's one step.

As to how it's prosecuted, I personally have no idea. I'm not a lawyer.

Many here have asked how it was illegal. You implied that people couldn't say exactly how it was illegal, so they moved onto saying it's immoral.

I answered that implication with the cold hard facts of why the war was illegal. Now, instead of responding to that, you hope to change the subject (perhaps?) by asking how this crime can be prosecuted. I'm certain that there are many people, both nationally and internationally who are qualified to answer that question, but I'm not one of them.

I personally don't care how he's prosecuted if found guilty. But he should be tried. I'm sure someone would come up with some way to prosecute him. That's the least of the concern. But first, I think he should be charged and tried to find out if he's guilty or not.

Originally posted by neformore
Also the US justified the Iraq war as a breach of resolution 1441, mandated under international law by the United Nations Security Council.

Fine try the US for crimes against humanity. Oh, wait, you can't.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
What part of this do you not understand Benevolent Heretic?

I'll tell you what I do understand (I think). What you have described is a legal loophole. Bush is fond of using these. He used one in his NSA spy Program, too.

But the fact that you don't know how the prosecution would go forth (nor do I) is no reason to deny the criminal activity of this president. I'm sure a special prosecuter could work something out.

Just for some more light reading...

Legal Arguments for Impeachment.

Bush's War Crimes

Maybe the loophole you describe is what's keeping Bush safe from prosecution. And maybe that justifies it all for you. But I can't help but think that after all the crimes he's commited (prosecution notwithstanding) he should be held accountable.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Originally posted by neformore
Also the US justified the Iraq war as a breach of resolution 1441, mandated under international law by the United Nations Security Council.

Fine try the US for crimes against humanity. Oh, wait, you can't.

PMSL..I am beginning to think I am invisible or is it that you know I am right so you talk over the top of me..Hoping I won't be heard! You would have to apologise then.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Originally posted by tha stillz

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Bottom line - the war is not 'illegal'. It received proper approval through our government channels.

You and semper always have the same stuff to say, citing "technically correct" items, but meanwhile sidestepping the substance.

Is it moral to CONTINUE THE WAR, when it has been determined that the premises we're ALL WRONG??

This is priceless.

All people hear is "Illegal War!!! Illegal War!!! Illegal War!!!". And when pressed for facts it becomes "Er...ok...Immoral War!!! Immoral War!!! Immoral War!!!.

"Morality" is an individuals code of conduct based upon their ideals and opinions. Your ideals and opinions differ from that of other people. To impose yours on someone else is essentially the same thing the US is doing in Iraq. So do not impugn the morality of others, lest ye be judged.

So I'm waiting for the next rallying cry: "Bad War!!! Bad War!!! Bad War!!!

It is illegal in many ways as has been pointed out repeatedly. I asked if it was moral to continue this war, and expected side stepping. I don't think asking someone if continuing the war is moral is imposing my values on others. Am I off base here? I guess it is pointless either way, becasue I know the guy (pres) is going to pay for his moral dilequence...

While I do agree that you shouldn't push your values on others, I think that a long hard look needs to be taken at this war, preferably in a shorter period of time rather than a longer one.

We'll go round and round all day I suppose. Bottom line here is there was not enough justifcation to go to war, and there is not enough justification to stay there.

Oil prices are not a good enough reason. The government needs to disclose the technologies that exist, instead of hiding them to keep control of the global populace.

Disclosure Project Link

^with this evidence it is cased closed as far as I am concerned.


Oh by the way, it is really annoying and childish to use that stupid "laughing emoticon" on a topic that revolves around our fellow americans dying for no reason....





[edit on 3-1-2007 by tha stillz]

Originally posted by Murphs
I am beginning to think I am invisible or is it that you know I am right so you talk over the top of me..Hoping I won't be heard! You would have to apologise then.

Trying to do too many things at the same time. I'm at my office, sometimes things slip past me on the internet.

Originally posted by Murphs Iraq was not approved by the UNSC..So therefore they can be tried.

The UN had previously authorized the use of force, backed up by Resolution 678 of 1990. Theory being that this was a continuation of the First Gulf War. No country in the SC has brought up sufficient evidence or put up enough of a fight or argument to gain any legal momentum. So, we're back to trying the administration at The Hague. Oops, can't.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So you do admit it's a crime, then. That's one step.

I don't admit anything. Take my comments as a "for the sake of argument" type of terminology.

Also, understand that I don't necessarily support this war in Iraq, I'm just trying to play Devil's Advocate here and get people to use less "Propaganda Speech" such as "Illegal War!!! Illegal War!!!", I think its absurd. Thus far, the war has not been judged to be illegal. If it has not been judged so, you cannot call it one.

If you want to call it something, call it something accurate and without rhetoric

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What you have described is a legal loophole. Bush is fond of using these.

[...]

Maybe the loophole you describe is what's keeping Bush safe from prosecution.

This is correct, it is a loophole. A loophole that prevents prosecution. Therefore, stop calling it an illegal war, for it is not. It is legal, or at least above legal reproach or judgment. If you don't like it, fine, I'm okay with that. Just be accurate and end the propaganda.

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Fine try the US for crimes against humanity. Oh, wait, you can't.

Now you see, thats the kind of attitude that gets the USA branded as arrogant, and stirs up all this "anti-american" feeling that people bleat about.

Like it or not, you are a part of this world as much as the rest of us, but just so you know, I'm not convinced that "Crimes against Humanity" is appropriate.

I DO see a case for impeaching Bush for not having his facts straight about the WMD issues in Iraq. He is the President of the USA, in control of the the most powerful armed forces on the planet. He should have had his bloody facts straight and if there was any doubt at all - ANY doubt - he should not have committed to the invasion of Iraq on the premise of WMD. The same goes for Blair and the rest of the sheep that followed on into the invasion.

There is a great line in the film "A Few good Men", where Jack Nicholson says "we make mistakes and people die". Its about time people faced up tp the fact that, on the WMD premise, an awful lot of mistakes were made, an awful lot of people have died and people need to start to be held responsible. Only one person gave the "go" order for US forces on that premise and his name is George Walker Bush. The same applies to Blair with the UK forces.

Clinton was impeached for getting a blow job in the White House. That was his mistake. George Walker Bush has made a mistake that so far has cost the lives of 3000+ US service personnel, and the guy is still in office. If you can't see a problem with that then may whatever deity you recognise have mercy on your soul.

Or let me put it this way. Had George Walker Bush been in office on October 16th 1962 and acted in a similar manner during the Cuban Missile crisis as he has with the Iraq War, we'd not be having this conversation because he would probably have listened to the yes men and the military hawks and the craters of cities around the world would just be grassing over round about now.

[edit on 3/0107/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by number1hammer

The majority of the casualties would come from willing combatants,(i.e. military soldiers)not innocent civilians who didnt want the war. Dropping an atomic bomb is a war crime. As anyone knows alot of innocent people WILL die. They did this knowing that this would happen. They TARGETED civilians. Just so they wouldnt suffer heavy military casualties. Does that sound fair and just to you? Even if it is a just war(which i personally feal that wwII was), you still cant condone the use of A-bombs against civilian population. Plain and simple. I dont care what country you are. And that is clearly what the intention was when they were dropped. You cannot justify the use of the atomic bombs because you would suffer heavy military casualties. It is not humane or morally correct. ....Like i stated. The lives lost from the A-bombs were innocents. Almost all of the lives lost due to an invasion would have been willing combatants and military soldiers.

Do you even read the links? Take a guess how many civilians died on Okinawa? Try about 122,000. That is more than either the US or Japanese military combined deaths for the battle. Is that a big enough number for you to quit with the silly "a majority would have been willing combatants" claims. Talk to someone who was there if you want a first hand account of the hell that occurred there, I have and it's unreal. There was every indication that the battles for the Home Islands would be as bad or even worse.

Why can you not justify the use a weapon that in it's use ends the hostilities faster with less casualties and deaths on all sides? Explain that one to me. Would it have been more humane and moral to starve, kill and destroy most of Japan to achieve the surrender of Japan? Give me a break. Is/was the atomic bomb a terrible weapon, yes. Look up the definition of weapon. They are supposed to be deadly for the most part.

Who is to say they wouldn't have kept dropping the bombs until they did comply? You cannot be 100% for sure the invasion would have taken place after a couple of bombs being dropped.

You do know that we dropped the only 2 Atomic bombs that we had, right? There were no more in reserve. That is why we dropped them so close in time together, to give the impression we had more and would do the same to each major Japanese city in turn. In reality we only had the two.
If Japan had not surrendered due to the A-bombs, by far the greatest possibility was an invasion of the Japanese home Islands, don't be naive about it.

Going to war is the one of if not the biggest and toughest decisions to be made known to man...... So why not go by a standard of you better be right or you will be held accountable for your decisions. Sounds pretty logical to me.

Fuzzy logic to say the least. So if I wipe out my opposition to the point of utter annihilation and win, I am right? There is no one there to hold me accountable correct? If you go to war, you might as well go the pogrom route eh? Leave no witness and you are right. See the flaw in that?

If you receive bad intel. It is your fault for trusting that source. Plain and simple. You as the president are the one who will now be held accountable for this false and inaccurate intel. I don't see how that isn't a fair policy that should be adopted by all countries of the world.

What if "gasp" you foes knowingly disseminate false info and intel to hide their true intentions? Is it wrong for you to act on what you believe to be accurate info? Your enemy would never lie about having a certain weapon system when in fact they had no such weapon, right? You act on the best intelligence you can get your hands on and get the evaluations of other intelligence agencies in other nations as well in making your judgement.
If I play three card monte with you and you guess wrong because of my "cheating", it's your fault for guessing wrong?

That's the standard you are asking for. The UN could not account for WMD material in a satisfactory manner, and we are to assume a dictator's word that "really, it's destroyed, we just don't have the records or locations for you. If Saddam did not have WMD, many of his Generals thought Iraq did. Why did his troops have CW gear with them? Saddam wanted to portray Iraq as being a WMD capable country to the US and the region at the very least. If someone who has committed armed robbery in the past, comes up to you with a toy gun in their coat pocket, you are supposed to assume it is a toy? Please!

Originally posted by neformore
Now you see, thats the kind of attitude that gets the USA branded as arrogant, and stirs up all this "anti-american" feeling that people bleat about.

Like it or not, you are a part of this world as much as the rest of us, but just so you know, I'm not convinced that "Crimes against Humanity" is appropriate.

I DO see a case for impeaching Bush for not having his facts straight about the WMD issues in Iraq.

In one sentence, you state that the USA is arrogant because of their "I know better, I am above reproach" attitude. Shortly afterward, you tell us that you believe that the American President needs to be impeached. Because you know better, naturally.

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.


And again, I repeat, I am not voicing support for the current American administration, I'm merely pointing out that this whole "Illegal War!" stuff is little more than total BS




EDIT-Spelling
EDIT-Spelling AGAIN *sigh*
[edit on 3-1-2007 by Reality Hurts]

[edit on 3-1-2007 by Reality Hurts]

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
In one sentence, you state that the USA is arrogant because of their "I know better, I am above reproach" attitude. Shortly afterward, you tell us that you believe that the American President needs to be impeached. Because you know better, naturally.

No, I'm voicing a personal opinion, in the same way you are voicing yours. You convinently missed the fact that I condemned my own Prime Minister as well.

So in order for it to be a contradiction I would have had to have painted a picture where one party was better than the other, which I didn't.

I'm not putting the actions of Blair above Bush, and I'm not saying that he's untouchable. Blair needs to be kicked out of office as well, in my opinion. Thats a little bit different than the statement of yours which read, as I recall

Fine try the US for crimes against humanity. Oh, wait, you can't

Which, when put in the context of the point we were discussing, that the US is not a signatory to the ICC is a particularly arrogant thing to say.

It was a nice try though, although you sidestepped the major premise of that particular post completely in your misguided attempt to try and pick a hole in what I've written.



[edit on 3/0107/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by neformore
Which, when put in the context of the point we were discussing, that the US is not a signatory to the ICC is a particularly arrogant thing to say.

It was a nice try though, although you sidestepped the major premise of that particular post completely in your misguided attempt to try and pick a hole in what I've written.

But, it is a valid point, arrogant or not. The US is not accountable to any court at this point. It cannot, nor can its citizens, be tried or judged by a higher authority than their own government.

What I see is arrogant, is the constant assertion that this is an illegal war. This war has not, and cannot, be legally judged to be so. I see the claims of "illegal war" as pompous opining, from people who claim to be morally and intellectually superior. (That is not an insult, and it is not directed at anyone in particular)

If you want to call it a "Bad War", okay. If you want to call it an "Unfortunate War", okay. If you want to call it a "Rotten Decision", okay. If you want to call it a "misguided attempt at profiteering, okay. I'm good with all of this, however, it is not an illegal war.

At the very least, people should ask why not.

My personal opinion? Yes

Do i want to debate about it or explain why this is my opinion? NO

Thanks,
john

Everyone knows that Cheny & Bush & Co. (Oil Tycoons) had land-locked oil that was blocked by the Taliban, that need to get from the Caspian Sea to the Gulf to be shipped off and sold.... Trillions of dollars worth of oil.... Multi Trillions $.

Thats the reasons for taking Afganistan and Iraq. Afganistan in preticular becuase the Taliban was blocking the oil in real time from the Caspian through Afganistan. Iraq is just an insurance policy to make sure that that country stays "open" to allow future oil to get to the Gulf from Syria, Iraq, Jordan, ect.

All indications are that the USA & CO. will be going towards Iran next. Mark these predicted words (not my prediction, just repeating it from what Ive heard).

All this in itself should be enough to charge these criminals. But I personally fear those boys have too-much power, as in, there really is nothing that you or I could do. Hence why I think China & Russian still havnt done anything, they are scared too of being wiped off the face of the earth like Sadam.

[edit on 3-1-2007 by JbT]

Originally posted by JbT
All this in itself should be enough to charge these criminals.

No real need to charge them is there since you have already declared them criminals and already guilty. Just get the gallows ready, no need for trials or any of that fluff. Everyone knows that, dontcha know?

Wow! what a heated topic, but I think we are all missing one thing and I listed it below.

Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity and a policy held between governments, which ensures that diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws (although they can be expelled). It was agreed as international law in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), though there is a much longer history in international law.

Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations, including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomats - formally, representatives of the sovereign (head of state) - the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure that they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these will be provided on a reciprocal basis. As one article put it: "So why do we agree to a system in which we're dependent on a foreign country's whim before we can prosecute a criminal inside our own borders? The practical answer is: because we depend on other countries to honour our own diplomats' immunity just as scrupulously as we honour theirs."[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

This document protects heads of state and their assistants from legal issues resulting from a countries actions.

Right or wrong heads of states are protected.

EVERY world leader would be arrested each time they leave their home country for crimes committed under their watch.

Saddam Hussein was not the President of Iraq, he was not an elected leader under a free democratic process.

SH was a citizen of Iraq, tried by a judge and convited of killing 150 people.

Pretty simple, I think he got off lucky.

I would have preferred the Uday Hussein mode of execution myself, by using a tree chipper and incerting SH in the machine feet first.

Why do you think Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is spouting off about Israel, Mahmoud is the elected leader of Iran and he is protected by diplomatic Immunity.

You have to admire GWB though, going after the man that tried to kill his dad! I would have done the same thing if someone tried to kill my Dad, hunt them down and kill them. Sad it cost 3000 American soldiers lives and countless civilian lives.

Oh well, I guess if you have to blame GWB, I guess you have to also blame congress, and the Generals who ordered the troops, and then the troops. So lets kill them all while we are at it !

Or do you blame Saddam Hussien and his two punk kids for killing thousands of Kurds, Iranians, Kuwati's and Iraqi's, even his own people for the sake of control and power.

We are all to blame here, sitting at our PC's bitching about world events and doing nothing but spouting off here is whats wrong!

If you don't like your leadership run for office, get involved and change the world or shut up !

Originally posted by SIRR1

Saddam Hussein was not the President of Iraq, he was not an elected leader under a free democratic process.

Ummmm.......

What can anyone say to this apart from pointing you at the various videos I'm sure you'll find out there of Mr.Rusmfeld visiting a certain Saddam Hussein and acknowledging him as President of Iraq back when he was prepared to buy weapons from the US to kill of as many Iranians as he could following their revolution and the disposition of the US's former best buddy in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran.

Now....elected, maybe not, but then - and I hate to bring up this old chestnut - was Bush actually elected? Or did the supreme courts in the US make the decision whilst disregarding a whole load of evidence that something might just have been a teeny little bit amiss with the voting system?

"Quote by Gt100fv
The point was is that you were "speaking for God," with some of your previous remarks. If you're not drawing on any one particular religion, what was the basis for some of the presumptions?"

Im not sure what you mean by drawing, but if i am interprating it correctly i would assume you mean practice any one religion. excuse me as i am a hillbilly. But just because i dont practice any 1 paticular religion doesnt mean i dont have morals and i know right from wrong. And also, what do you mean speaking for god. I thought it was a given that murdering innocent people is not morally correct. Am i wrong on this situation? "

You said you didn't follow a religion, yet know exactly what God's opinion is. I was merely asking for what the basis of that fact was.


"Quote by Gt100fv
As for rules of engagement, the protected status of a building or site is extended, so long as it isn't being used unlawfully(it is a war crime to hide among civilians(i.e. human shields), use hospitals, schools, religious sites to stage military operations from).

I understand that. Clearly, 100%. But it dont give a country the right to bomb these facilities just because their is military officials or bases operating out of them. Please dont tell me you think that is acceptable. You cant justify one war crime because someone commits another. You should be forced to go in on foot. Plain and simple. "


If a protected site is being used unlawfully, it loses its protected status and the military has every right to attack it. You need to brush up on what the laws of landwarfare actually say.



"Quote by Gt100fv
Your 100% accidental standard is simply unrealistic, and not even the Geneva and Hague conventions require that standard. "

How is it unrealistic? I said as long as the casualties are 100% accidental, then it is the only way it can be justified. God will know if they are accidental or not. It truly is that simple. "


Have you every heard of the expression, The Fog of War? Nothing is known for certain. You can't wait till you have a the 100 percent solution, or you'll get wiped out. You take the best intel estimate you've got, and act. Decisiveness is what wins the day. What's that motto "Who Dares Wins."

"As for Truman, Japan, and the A Bomb, there were estimates of how many men it would take to invade mainland Japan, the prepping it would take before such an invasion, and the loss of life of Allied and Japanese. It's true that there's no way to say exactly what the losses would be, but based on previous engagements, a lot of correlations could be made. Suffice it to say, it was a tough decision to make, and it turned out to be the correct one. You can't make the standard for war crimes be- well if the plans works out, it's cool, otherwise your going to jail and hanging.

Its not caualties of war when you purposely murder innocent people. How hard is that to understand. "


Limiting the total loss of life is the greater good. You're applying your personal convictions as what the law of warfare should be. The standard is that you try to minimize civilian suffering, and if killing 100,000 civilians results in 500,000 civilians not dying, then you have minimized civilian losses. There is no law saying that no civilians die in war, and if any do for any reason, then it's a crime. It is also the responsibility to one's men to not get them needlessly killed if it's within one's ability. In total war, the object is to destroy the enemies ability and will to continue fighting.
If civilians are making tanks and planes, and bombs, they are part of the war effort, as are merchantmen sailors, etc....that's why you can't make blanket statements regarding collateral damage.


As for firing, trying, impeaching, executing, etc... folks for making mistakes- if there is a zero defect standard, then leaders are paralyzed, because they won't be able to act. If they act in good faith with the best info that is available, and things go south, it wasn't because they're bad people. It's when people don't or can't learn from their mistakes, when fresh perspective might be needed. There's a huge difference between making the wrong decision and being incompetent/inept.


"Quote by Gt100fv
Like it or not, the world runs on oil, and a madman can't be allowed to threaten global stability."

Why did you put these 2 thoughts into one sentance? I am curious as to why you did that. will you please explain to me what you mean by it? "



The world economy runs off of the availability and price of oil. It's definitely a matter of national security if a madman has ambitions to take control over the majority of the world's supplies, to hold the world hostage.
The global economy is a vital security issue, just like an imminent attack on one's homeland is.