Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe technically there is a good case against Bush. However, it will never come to trial. As it was pointed out the Allied leaders could have been brought to trial for the bombings of civilians in Germany, or America for the nuking of civilians in Japan. They weren't brought to trial because they 'won' and had the power. I do not think we have 'won' anything in Iraq, but since he has the 'power', it is a moot point.

Well said. It's funny how when other countries commit atrocities its bad, but when the US commits then, its okay. Just love the double standards and the "holier than thou" attitude many Americans have.

Incidentally in a major policy change, it looks like the administration is now granted full Geneva convention rights to the the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. This is the first major step to black-hole prisons being shut down entirely.

US detainees to get Geneva rights

As you say, there is an element of hypocrisy to it. The US has, in the past, quite rightly criticised the actions of other countries like Burma, North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, Libya etc for taking political prisoners engaging in torture. Guantanamo lowers the general moral standard the US is able to command in the international community.

Yet when the organisations such as Amnesty International and the International Committed of the Red Cross produce reports condemning the US holding and treatment of terrorist suspects they get ridiculed. Again we are quite prepared to accept the claims when they are about other countries, less so when we have to hold the mirror up to ourselves.

Its still a testament to how far things have fallen when an internationally respected charity organisation faces the threat of its funding being taken away, because a few politicians don't like what they have to say. Since when was doing your job, dependent on saying the right thing. Makes a mockery of what the organisation stands for IMO.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Fishdude

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

Now, if I adopted your bizarre view that this test actually applies to a war, and it was decided that Germany in WWI presented a clear and present danger to the USA, Iraq most certainly would.

Why? How on earth did you conclude this, pray tell?

Are you referring to the test not applying or the level of danger Germany in 1917 and Iraq in 2003 presented to the USA?

Pre-emptive strike without provocation vs. aiding an ally from acts of agression - I think that's an obvious difference, no?

[Ban Hammer 13,633]

No I don't. I made my views clear on this and many other threads.

You haven't. Fill in your own hole and shut it while you're at it

lol i do believe i annoyed fishdude

As I said, stop making this thread about me, or rather your continuing attempts to attack my opinions rather than presenting your own. To paraphrase something you said on another thread it makes you, IMO,

a minor league ####

plagiarist shall we call you ann coulter now?

it's all in fun fishdude, don't take it all seriously. smile for a change

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Now, if I adopted your bizarre view that this test actually applies to a war, and it was decided that Germany in WWI presented a clear and present danger to the USA, Iraq most certainly would.

Why? How on earth did you conclude this, pray tell?

Are you referring to the test not applying or the level of danger Germany in 1917 and Iraq in 2003 presented to the USA?

Pre-emptive strike without provocation vs. aiding an ally from acts of agression - I think that's an obvious difference, no?

I think he means to say that Germany circa WW1 didn't present a direct threat to the US, yet they took part anyway.

I'm not sure I agree with the suggestion that taking part in a massive global scale conflict such as WW1 or 2 is in any way similar with a limited unilateral action against a country that has posed no obvious threat to the US. The public are also rather more well informed than they were back in the early 20th century due to the availability of higher education and the prevalence of the mass media.

In any case, the difference back then is that there were several large military powers with imperialist ambitions and the economic/military means to carry them out. These days only China and the US really fit that bill.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[46]

Now, if I adopted your bizarre view that this test actually applies to a war, and it was decided that Germany in WWI presented a clear and present danger to the USA, Iraq most certainly would.

Why? How on earth did you conclude this, pray tell?

Are you referring to the test not applying or the level of danger Germany in 1917 and Iraq in 2003 presented to the USA?

Pre-emptive strike without provocation vs. aiding an ally from acts of agression - I think that's an obvious difference, no?

1. America was neutral before joining the first world war. It had NO allies.

2. Schenck v. United States was a free speech case related to a war. A "clear and present danger" is an archaic free speech test. It has nothing to do with justfication of war.

My point of comparison was rhetorical but posters seized upon it literally. I don't wish them to be further deluded.

From the unanimous opinion in Schenck v. UNITED STATES written by Justice Holmes:

But it is said, suppose that that was the tendency of this circular, it is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Two of the strongest expressions are said to be quoted respectively from well-known public men. It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the main purpose, as intimated in Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462. We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced. The statute of 1917 in § 4 punishes conspiracies to obstruct as well as actual obstruction. If the act, (speaking, or circulating a paper,) its tendency and the intent with which it is done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that success alone warrants making the act a crime. Goldman v. United States, 245 U.S. 474, 477. Indeed that case might be said to dispose of the present contention if the precedent covers all media concludendi. But as the right to free speech was not referred to specially, we have thought fit to add a few words.

Unanimous Opinion in Schenck v. UNITED STATES written by Justice Holmes

[Fandango 1,440]

If good government consisted of polling the public on every issue and siding with the "majority," you would likely be speaking German in England right now.

If you say so. Doesn't change the fact that Iraq was a 'dirty' affair.

Out of curiousity - what do you think this war is about?

Good vs Evil

That's the quick response. I would say deposing a dictator, stabilizing the middle east, killing terrorist thugs, and finding WMDs (which we have, by the way) all make good reasons.

Only one of these came to pass. Saddam is not in power anymore. I've heard about the supposed WMD-dsicovery but that has been disproved several times in the media. The Middle East hasn't been this unstable for a long time, terrorist thugs are the ones doing the killing.

If one does something and the outcome is - as predicted by quite a number of folks in the US - the opposite of the expected outcome than something went horribly wrong.

As to the countries supporting the war, the number is shrinking daily. And many of these countries willingly admitted having been coerced by money, weapons, etc. Even Britain, like the other countries, got a huge boost of US-investment, stabilizing its economy. And, the British public has since learned that it has been deceived into the war and has since been even more opposed.

I know I know!! The Boy Scout Pledge just doesn't do it anymore. All world leaders have to be bribed in order to act. They all are spinless.

It depends on what qualifies as spineless (no government is free of spin). A lot of those nations rely on foreign aid, and the US threatened to cut aid to countries. If you think about it, sending a few troops (and in most cases that's all these countries sent) in exchange for some money helping to keep you in power seems a no-brainer.

As a thought game, what if China or Russia decided to invade Israel because they felt threatened by Israel's WMDs (which do exist). Would we be as non-chalant about it? And if not, what is the difference?

Haven't read the subsequent posts, so if it's been covered, I'll be redundant.

Israel did not agree to UN Sanctions as a result for a China or Russia ceasefire in a war...

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

Pre-emptive strike without provocation vs. aiding an ally from acts of agression - I think that's an obvious difference, no?

1. America was neutral before joining the first world war. It had NO allies.

2. Schenck v. United States was a free speech case related to a war. A "clear and present danger" is an archaic free speech test. It has nothing to do with justfication of war.

My point of comparison was rhetorical but posters seized upon it literally. I don't wish them to be further deluded.

From the unanimous opinion in Schenck v. UNITED STATES written by Justice Holmes:

I don't want to turn this into a historical argument comparing our involvement in WWI with the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq. I'm not a smarty pants, history buff. I'll leave that between you and Aquaman.

But I will take offense to what you said about Howard Zinn. You may disagree with the man, but he's no Johny-come-lately. He deserves more credit than that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Pre-emptive strike without provocation vs. aiding an ally from acts of agression - I think that's an obvious difference, no?

1. America was neutral before joining the first world war. It had NO allies.

2. Schenck v. United States was a free speech case related to a war. A "clear and present danger" is an archaic free speech test. It has nothing to do with justfication of war.

My point of comparison was rhetorical but posters seized upon it literally. I don't wish them to be further deluded.

From the unanimous opinion in Schenck v. UNITED STATES written by Justice Holmes:

I don't want to turn this into a historical argument comparing our involvement in WWI with the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq. I'm not a smarty pants, history buff. I'll leave that between you and Aquaman.

The two are not the same. Context is different as is the political landscape.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

does that supercede the constitution, since you cite international law and not the constitution?

We supposedly invaded Iraq because Saddam's regime was not following a bunch of UN resolutions, right? Yet, if the UN and international law means nothing (as we showed by side-stepping it and invading Iraq against it's will), then it's resolutions don't mean a thing either. According to the actions of this administration, the non-compliance with UN resolutions is really not a reason to invade a country. Short of the non-compliance with the UN, what would be the basis and justification for marching into Iraq? And please spare me the "we needed to liberate the Iraqi people" bullshite.

George W Bush, who is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths of innocent people, should be checked into Gitmo w/o charges, trial or recourse. You know, help him to some of his own medicine...

Edited July 12, 2006 by ET-US2004

[I'm Gone 60]

Bush will be tried for war crimes when al-Qaeda takes over the U.S. Only losers get tried for war crimes. Plus the whole idea of war crimes and rules of war is a bunch of BS as far as I'm concerned. As they say all's fair in love and war.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Plus the whole idea of war crimes and rules of war is a bunch of BS as far as I'm concerned. As they say all's fair in love and war.

How do you rationalise that?

I mean, should we congratulate Saddam for using chemical weapons?

Is it right to bomb a densely populated housing area to kill 1 or 2 people, who may or may not even be there?

[Ban Hammer 13,633]

Plus the whole idea of war crimes and rules of war is a bunch of BS as far as I'm concerned. As they say all's fair in love and war.

How do you rationalise that?

I mean, should we congratulate Saddam for using chemical weapons?

Is it right to bomb a densely populated housing area to kill 1 or 2 people, who may or may not even be there?

oh ####### a test and i didn't even study!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Plus the whole idea of war crimes and rules of war is a bunch of BS as far as I'm concerned. As they say all's fair in love and war.

How do you rationalise that?

I mean, should we congratulate Saddam for using chemical weapons?

Is it right to bomb a densely populated housing area to kill 1 or 2 people, who may or may not even be there?

oh ####### a test and i didn't even study!

Are you lurking or something - You posted that within a minute?

[Ban Hammer 13,633]

Plus the whole idea of war crimes and rules of war is a bunch of BS as far as I'm concerned. As they say all's fair in love and war.

How do you rationalise that?

I mean, should we congratulate Saddam for using chemical weapons?

Is it right to bomb a densely populated housing area to kill 1 or 2 people, who may or may not even be there?

oh ####### a test and i didn't even study!

Are you lurking or something - You posted that within a minute?

[I'm Gone 60]

Plus the whole idea of war crimes and rules of war is a bunch of BS as far as I'm concerned. As they say all's fair in love and war.

How do you rationalise that?

I mean, should we congratulate Saddam for using chemical weapons?

Is it right to bomb a densely populated housing area to kill 1 or 2 people, who may or may not even be there?

Well by that measure Harry Truman was a war criminal, but we won. So as I said war crimes are only for the losers.

Plus the whole idea of war crimes and rules of war is a bunch of BS as far as I'm concerned. As they say all's fair in love and war.

How do you rationalise that?

I mean, should we congratulate Saddam for using chemical weapons?

Is it right to bomb a densely populated housing area to kill 1 or 2 people, who may or may not even be there?

I'm not planning on going to war anytime soon, but if I was at war it would be kill'em all and let God sort it out.