Are President Obama and Former Secretary Clinton guilty of War Crimes?

It could be argued that President Obama and Former Secretary Clinton are guilty of numerous wars crimes just based on the WikiLeaks releases we have seen. Should these two people should be prosecuted regardless of the election outcome.

Hillary Clinton’s war crimes are unforgivable. No real progressive could ever support her.
usuncut.com...

Yes.

Also,
Congress, DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, ATF, and others.

Mostly, though, just good ol' treason. Undermining the USA.

My understanding is that war criminals would be brought before the International Criminal Court in The Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

I am not a lawyer, so I can say little more than they appear to be guilty to me.

a reply to: WishIKnew2

Of course they are guilty of war crimes. They invaded and destabilized countries that were no threat to the USA. They are tools of the Rothschilds. who control most of the Worlds Central Banks

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: WishIKnew2

Of course they are guilty of war crimes. They invaded and destabilized countries that were no threat to the USA. They are tools of the Rothschilds. who control most of the Worlds Central Banks

Thats the sole reason Obama vetoed the bill for 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia it would've backfired

a reply to: WishIKnew2

George Bush Snr and every POTUS since are also warpigs who have involved the USA in the crime of invading sovereign nations, murdering largte numbers of that countries citizens and set-up globalist-compliant puppet-regimes to rule over the remaining citizens not-yet murdered.

The Hague would be inundated & overwhelmed with criminals from most governments on the planet from the past 50+ years, especially when most invasions were premeditated via false-flag operations - another alphabet agency signature maneuver.

a reply to: WishIKnew2

My understanding is that war criminals would be brought before the International Criminal Court in The Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

not in the U.S. the U.S. does not recognize the Hague.

Yes, and for good measure Bush as well. The US has become a vehicle for globalism. Just look at Iraq, Libya and Syria, three completely manufactured wars to destabilize the region.

a reply to: WishIKnew2

Dont be Silly. The US can accuse other countries of war crimes, but not be accused because they aren't part of the ICC. Its a very convenient situation.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie

not in the U.S. the U.S. does not recognize the Hague.

^^ This ^^

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

not in the U.S. the U.S. does not recognize the Hague.

I had to look that up when i read it , a snippet below .

There is also a concern from some American lawmakers that if we as a country join the court, individuals from the global community will punish America for its aggressive foreign policy by using the ICC to prosecute American soldiers and other military actors.

Explains a lot really . Sorry no linky thing .

Yes but the US (also pretty much every other country) doesn't even have a method of ridding themselves of criminals in office, without some complicated bring in army, (but your can replace the heads of army and therefore ensure that doesnt happen) or have the criminals themselves decide to start impeachment, which is something they would rarely see done as politics seems to be PAY TO PLAY and they all have been paid amply.

So, the problem seems to be not having a GOOD SECURE EFFECTIVE CIVILIAN METHOD TO ARREST TRY AND IMPRISON THESE CRIMINALS.

THAT NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED!

Something along the lines of police arrest, and they go to jail, await trial, the kind of procedure that happens to citizens.

a reply to: WishIKnew2

If George W Bush, Dick Cheney, And Condoleezza Rice are as well. Oh and Donald Rumsfeld!!

a reply to: WishIKnew2

Every president in at least the last 50 years is probably guilty of war crimes. The next 50 years won't be any different either.

originally posted by: ssenerawa

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: WishIKnew2

Of course they are guilty of war crimes. They invaded and destabilized countries that were no threat to the USA. They are tools of the Rothschilds. who control most of the Worlds Central Banks

Thats the sole reason Obama vetoed the bill for 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia it would've backfired

I only got one thing to say on your post :

Yes, yes they are but three is no chance of presenting the case to any body of law that would consider it.

a reply to: hutch622

Our govt hates the Hague so much that in 2002 we passed the "American Service-Members' Protection Act", which is nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act".

ASPA authorizes the U.S. president to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court." This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed The Hague Invasion Act, because the freeing of U.S. citizens by force might be possible only through an invasion of The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of several international criminal courts and of the Dutch government.

American Service-Members' Protection Act
We've operated nearly all of the "War on Terror" with the knowledge that any of our personnel or allied personnel has the US military's protection from the Hague.

If they aren't in the ICC then they have no right to demand others be brought before it.
Typical US government hypocrisy. Hey they are outlaws (outside the law). A fitting term for that cabal.

Just as guilty as Nixon, Reagan, Bush..etc