Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A Nuremberg chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying Bush for the 'supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.'

Benjamin Ferenccz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials who successfully convicted 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating death squads that killed more than one million people in the famous Einsatzgruppen Case. Ferencz, now 87, has gone on to become a founding father of the basis behind international law regarding war crimes, and his essays and legal work drawing from the Nuremberg trials and later the commission that established the International Criminal Court remain a lasting influence in that realm.

Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the highest crime against mankind. It was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on. Ferencz believes that a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."

Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:

"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."

It's that simple. Ferencz called the invasion a "clear breach of law," and dismissed the Bush administration's legal defense that previous U.N. Security Council resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War justified an invasion in 2003. Ferencz notes that the first Bush president believed that the United States didn't have a U.N. mandate to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein; that authorization was simply to eject Hussein from Kuwait. Ferencz asked, "So how do we get authorization more than a decade later to finish the job? The arguments made to defend this are not persuasive."

http://alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/

[incanada1234 0]

I'm sure it'll just tickle your pickle if he can be.

[peejay 327]

And...who is going to arrest him and put him on trial? Well...I'm waiting for an answer!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And...who is going to arrest him and put him on trial? Well...I'm waiting for an answer!

You're right. It's not likely to happen but hopefully in the court of public opinion and in the future when people look back at the war in Iraq, history will make it clear that this President ignored protocol for engaging in war. This same President has entertained the idea of invading Iran.

It's important also because where do we go from here? What is the protocol for engaging in war? Some Americans question the legitimacy of the U.N. so what international court is going to decide when there is legitimate reasons for engaging in war? Does the United States want to be completely autonomous when it comes to making such decisions? Is there anything we can learn from our mistakes?

[incanada1234 0]

A lot of Americans are smart enough to remember three words: 13 U.N. resolutions.

[daisy16 0]

Regardless of how history describes Bush or if he is impeached or tried for war crimes, NONE of that will help the civilian people of Iraq.

[Fandango 1,439]

And...who is going to arrest him and put him on trial? Well...I'm waiting for an answer!

You're right. It's not likely to happen but hopefully in the court of public opinion and in the future when people look back at the war in Iraq, history will make it clear that this President ignored protocol for engaging in war. This same President has entertained the idea of invading Iran.

It's important also because where do we go from here? What is the protocol for engaging in war? Some Americans question the legitimacy of the U.N. so what international court is going to decide when there is legitimate reasons for engaging in war? Does the United States want to be completely autonomous when it comes to making such decisions? Is there anything we can learn from our mistakes?

Lest we forget Congress & the vote to give him the authority to go, which without it, would have renedered him powerless. So let's get them up there too

Edited July 10, 2006 by LisaD

[Cassie 8]

And...who is going to arrest him and put him on trial? Well...I'm waiting for an answer!

You're right. It's not likely to happen but hopefully in the court of public opinion and in the future when people look back at the war in Iraq, history will make it clear that this President ignored protocol for engaging in war. This same President has entertained the idea of invading Iran.

It's important also because where do we go from here? What is the protocol for engaging in war? Some Americans question the legitimacy of the U.N. so what international court is going to decide when there is legitimate reasons for engaging in war? Does the United States want to be completely autonomous when it comes to making such decisions? Is there anything we can learn from our mistakes?

Christopher Hitchens made the case for prosecuting Henry Kissinger in his 2002 book The Trial of Henry Kissinger. It makes for some thought provoking discussion.

With the arrest and attempt to prosecute Augusto Pinochet from Chile, this is not a far fetched notion. Will it happen? I highly doubt it.

[john_and_marlene 162]

And...who is going to arrest him and put him on trial? Well...I'm waiting for an answer!

You're right. It's not likely to happen but hopefully in the court of public opinion and in the future when people look back at the war in Iraq, history will make it clear that this President ignored protocol for engaging in war. This same President has entertained the idea of invading Iran.

It's important also because where do we go from here? What is the protocol for engaging in war? Some Americans question the legitimacy of the U.N. so what international court is going to decide when there is legitimate reasons for engaging in war? Does the United States want to be completely autonomous when it comes to making such decisions? Is there anything we can learn from our mistakes?

Lest we forget Congress & the vote to give him the authority to go, which without it, would have renedered him powerless. So let's get them up there too

Lisa, Lisa, Lisa ... you are trying to overrule emotion with facts. I'm not sure that was expected.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lisa, Lisa, Lisa ... you are trying to overrule emotion with facts. I'm not sure that was expected.

We've discovered since that time just how the events unfolded. This Administration made the case for war by manipulating the intelligence to fit their agenda. That's fact, not emotions.

Edited July 10, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[john_and_marlene 162]

Lisa, Lisa, Lisa ... you are trying to overrule emotion with facts. I'm not sure that was expected.

We've discovered since that time just how the events unfolded. This Administration made the case for war by manipulating the intelligence to fit their agenda. That's fact, not emotions.

While there is speculation of manipulation and who was responsible for it, that doesn't make it fact. But, let's keep on target ... your original contention was that the U.N. did not approve it and that made it a war crime. Was the congress manipulated into thinking that the U.N. had approved it???? NO. They voted for it knowing that it wasn't approved by the U.N.

[Veiled Princess 1]

The question isn't CAN it be done.. the question is WILL it be done...

[Alex+R 0]

Lisa, Lisa, Lisa ... you are trying to overrule emotion with facts. I'm not sure that was expected.

We've discovered since that time just how the events unfolded. This Administration made the case for war by manipulating the intelligence to fit their agenda. That's fact, not emotions.

While there is speculation of manipulation and who was responsible for it, that doesn't make it fact. But, let's keep on target ... your original contention was that the U.N. did not approve it and that made it a war crime. Was the congress manipulated into thinking that the U.N. had approved it???? NO. They voted for it knowing that it wasn't approved by the U.N.

And they were wrong. (G'bless my dear Senator Feingold on this one) And whether or not there was manipulation----fact! fact! fact! Have you been watching too much Fox News? People who choose ignorance...

I'm going to go walk my dogs....breathe in...breathe out....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Lisa, Lisa, Lisa ... you are trying to overrule emotion with facts. I'm not sure that was expected.

We've discovered since that time just how the events unfolded. This Administration made the case for war by manipulating the intelligence to fit their agenda. That's fact, not emotions.

While there is speculation of manipulation and who was responsible for it, that doesn't make it fact. But, let's keep on target ... your original contention was that the U.N. did not approve it and that made it a war crime. Was the congress manipulated into thinking that the U.N. had approved it???? NO. They voted for it knowing that it wasn't approved by the U.N.

So what are the rules of engagement short of defending our country from an actual attack? Do you believe the United States has the right to engage in war without the approval of the United Nations?

[john_and_marlene 162]

I think the United Nations has shown itself to be benign.

A few points:

I am not pro (insert party here).

I am also not for selecting an agenda and then looking for isolated arguements to support it.

I do think the world had an obligation to enforce the sanctions against Iraq.

I don't think the U.N. would have ever enforced it's own resolutions... just endless resolutions without teeth.

I do think Iraq should have been given a final deadline to comply with action for noncompliance.

I do think congressmen are individually responsible for their vote.

I do think that inaction can be the greater danger

I do think that isolationism isn't the best defense.

I do think that countries that defy the U.N. should not be protected by it.