Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

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

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.

I can respect that. However, I hope that we will NEVER go to war again without following some kind of protocol (as in defending ourselves or our allies from imminent danger). We couldn't force Iraq to comply with resolutions short of using physical force. We could only go so far as isolating and limiting Hussein's abilities which we did successfully after the first Gulf War. He was not a threat to anyone. As evil as he was, using military force has proven excessive and has done more towards escalating terrorism in this world than anything.

[Peter Miami 0]

NO! he he should not be!

Peter Miami

[Fandango 1,439]

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.

the FACT is that the US changed our policy with Iraq to 'regime change' long before Bush was in office.

not to mention the countless intel over the years from world leaders.

The bottom line is this: people claim Bush is an gormless idiot, yet somehow he convinced the world 'of a lie' before he even came into power. Am I saying he's perfect? Absolutely not, and he's made some very dreadful errors imo....but let's not rewrite history here to suit our present.

A little pre-Bushie research on the state of affairs and prevailing opinion at the time would prolly be helpful.... Yes, this lil movie is dramatic...but it makes a very strong point that will prolly go ignored

[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.

I can respect that. However, I hope that we will NEVER go to war again without following some kind of protocol (as in defending ourselves or our allies from imminent danger). We couldn't force Iraq to comply with resolutions short of using physical force. We could only go so far as isolating and limiting Hussein's abilities which we did successfully after the first Gulf War. He was not a threat to anyone. As evil as he was, using military force has proven excessive and has done more towards escalating terrorism in this world than anything.

I do think it is far more constructive to spend the energy on doing things better in the future rather than agonizing over the past. I do also believe that it's important to learn the lessons of the past to forge a better future.

[Fandango 1,439]

Stick THAT in yer pipe and smoke it

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Whether or not Bush invented "regime-change" for Iraq is irrelevant.

Whether or not he deceived congress into giving him the right to go to war is something that we can discuss about, but not without actually looking at the resolution itself.

Whether Bush can be tried in front of a war crimes tribunal is an interesting question, especially when raised by a prosecutor from the Nuremberg trials (remember that the basic premise at that trial was that ignorance doesn't protect from punishment, that executing orders is no excuse, and that not being directly implicated because too high up in the chain of command does also not afford protection from prosecution). And let's not forget about the Geneva conventions and the administrations' reinterpretation of certain aspects of it which even the SCOTUS does not agree with.

Why, however, our elected representatives haven't decided to investigate how the war was planned and why it failed to bring the promised success is something that we should ask every day. But if anyone brings that up, it continues to be unpatriotic.

[Fandango 1,439]

Whether or not Bush invented "regime-change" for Iraq is irrelevant.

Whether or not he deceived congress into giving him the right to go to war is something that we can discuss about, but not without actually looking at the resolution itself.

Whether Bush can be tried in front of a war crimes tribunal is an interesting question, especially when raised by a prosecutor from the Nuremberg trials (remember that the basic premise at that trial was that ignorance doesn't protect from punishment, that executing orders is no excuse, and that not being directly implicated because too high up in the chain of command does also not afford protection from prosecution). And let's not forget about the Geneva conventions and the administrations' reinterpretation of certain aspects of it which even the SCOTUS does not agree with.

Why, however, our elected representatives haven't decided to investigate how the war was planned and why it failed to bring the promised success is something that we should ask every day. But if anyone brings that up, it continues to be unpatriotic.

But that's my point, the regime change was decided while Clinton was in office. Check out what was being said and documented about Iraq & WMDs before Bush took office. That most certainly is relevant.

Ppl wanna hold certain politicians to accountability while seemingly forgetting how some of the biggest anti-war vocalists had a direct hand in authorizing the war in the first place. If accountability is something that is important to a constituant, it shouldn't be exercised in a selective fashion.

That's just my point. People will try to mold certain things to suit their POVs....and it would be much easier if people actually stuck to FACTS and not speculation. I'm actually suprised how everyone thinks Bush is a puppetmaster, when the liberal community has essentially absolved their politicians for a very active role in this war. If you ask me, that's some mighty fine puppetry of the general public, if I do say so mahself

[john_and_marlene 162]

Why, however, our elected representatives haven't decided to investigate how the war was planned and why it failed to bring the promised success is something that we should ask every day. But if anyone brings that up, it continues to be unpatriotic.

If we want to make better decisions in the future, we'll have to set differences aside and really try to use the type of information that such an investigation could yield. I think there is a real problem when such investigations are used as political leverage and election fuel rather than a constructive path for better foreign policy.

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

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.

I can respect that. However, I hope that we will NEVER go to war again without following some kind of protocol (as in defending ourselves or our allies from imminent danger). We couldn't force Iraq to comply with resolutions short of using physical force. We could only go so far as isolating and limiting Hussein's abilities which we did successfully after the first Gulf War. He was not a threat to anyone. As evil as he was, using military force has proven excessive and has done more towards escalating terrorism in this world than anything.

I do think it is far more constructive to spend the energy on doing things better in the future rather than agonizing over the past. I do also believe that it's important to learn the lessons of the past to forge a better future.

History teaches us great lessons. But we must know the truth if we're to learn the lesson.

The controversies and facts surrounding this war will continue to be talked about and argued for a long time.

[john_and_marlene 162]

History teaches us great lessons. But we must know the truth if we're to learn the lesson.

The controversies and facts surrounding this war will continue to be talked about and argued for a long time.

Whick makes it doubly unfortunate that the real facts that might be used to make a difference are obscured by partisan finger pointing, political agendas, election fuel, and misdirection by both major political parties.

[VivaMexico 0]

Perhaps we should prosecute every American President that has ever been in office during a war? Why are the people that want to impeach/convict Bush not bringing up the conflicts that occurred during the Clinton Administration?

If someone can tell me how the people of Iraq are worse off now than they were under a ruthless dictator, by all means proceed. Maybe we should have stayed out of Europe during WWII as well???

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Whether or not Bush invented "regime-change" for Iraq is irrelevant.

Whether or not he deceived congress into giving him the right to go to war is something that we can discuss about, but not without actually looking at the resolution itself.

Whether Bush can be tried in front of a war crimes tribunal is an interesting question, especially when raised by a prosecutor from the Nuremberg trials (remember that the basic premise at that trial was that ignorance doesn't protect from punishment, that executing orders is no excuse, and that not being directly implicated because too high up in the chain of command does also not afford protection from prosecution). And let's not forget about the Geneva conventions and the administrations' reinterpretation of certain aspects of it which even the SCOTUS does not agree with.

Why, however, our elected representatives haven't decided to investigate how the war was planned and why it failed to bring the promised success is something that we should ask every day. But if anyone brings that up, it continues to be unpatriotic.

But that's my point, the regime change was decided while Clinton was in office. Check out what was being said and documented about Iraq & WMDs before Bush took office. That most certainly is relevant.

Ppl wanna hold certain politicians to accountability while seemingly forgetting how some of the biggest anti-war vocalists had a direct hand in authorizing the war in the first place. If accountability is something that is important to a constituant, it shouldn't be exercised in a selective fashion.

That's just my point. People will try to mold certain things to suit their POVs....and it would be much easier if people actually stuck to FACTS and not speculation. I'm actually suprised how everyone thinks Bush is a puppetmaster, when the liberal community has essentially absolved their politicians for a very active role in this war. If you ask me, that's some mighty fine puppetry of the general public, if I do say so mahself

The reason I think it's irrelevant is that Clinton did not invade Iraq but Bush did. So, when considering who broke international laws, it is irrelevant who had the idea to change the Iraqi regime.

But, I do think that the discussion as to who is to blame very much forgets the complicity of certain people (regardless of party) who now pretend they didn't do it. However, those people can say (and rightly so I think) that while they gave the POTUS the right to attack Iraq, he didn't exercise the necessary caution in using his carte blanche.

And yes, I agree accountability shouldn't be selective. That's why I would like to see everyone who voted for the war be kicked out of their office regardless of their party affiliation.

[VivaMexico 0]

That's why I would like to see everyone who voted for the war be kicked out of their office regardless of their party affiliation.

In that case, we would have to kick out 534 of the 535 Members of Congress.

Edited July 10, 2006 by VivaMexico

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Why, however, our elected representatives haven't decided to investigate how the war was planned and why it failed to bring the promised success is something that we should ask every day. But if anyone brings that up, it continues to be unpatriotic.

If we want to make better decisions in the future, we'll have to set differences aside and really try to use the type of information that such an investigation could yield. I think there is a real problem when such investigations are used as political leverage and election fuel rather than a constructive path for better foreign policy.

Totally agree. Which is why I hope that the "if you ask questions you must hate America/ the troops"-line will not pop up in this fall election. If we continue the adhominem/bandwagon-attacks instead of employing factual and convincing arguments, there's no way we can overcome the political divide.

And I think if one side in congress blames the other side of launching an investigations to garner votes even though something did obviously not go quite right, then we as a nation have a problem.

That's why I would like to see everyone who voted for the war be kicked out of their office regardless of their party affiliation.

In that case, we would have to kick out 534 of the 535 Members of Congress.

So what? That might be a real chance for the country. There should be a limit on terms for congressmen (and women) anyway. Keeps corruption lower and prevents complacency.

[Fuzzness 2]

republicans will defend Bush to the death and non-republicans will condemn him forever. this won't change for a long time i'm afraid.