Could Obama Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Three things leapt out at me during the President's speech tonight --

1) We will engage ISIS even in Syria with no regard for preserving the Assad regime let alone Syrian permission

2) We will actively support the Syrian rebels we think we can deal with

3) The UN wasn't even mentioned, ergo it wasn't even considered

OK, so if we go into a sovereign nation does this become relevant?

Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

AlterNet / By Jan Frel

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.'

While the United States is a country like any other, its citizens no more special than any others on the planet, Americans still react with surprise at the suggestion that their country could be held responsible for something as heinous as a war crime.

From the massacre of more than 100,000 people in the Philippines to the first nuclear attack ever at Hiroshima to the unprovoked invasion of Baghdad, U.S.-sponsored violence doesn't feel as wrong and worthy of prosecution in internationally sanctioned criminal courts as the gory, blood-soaked atrocities of Congo, Darfur, Rwanda, and most certainly not the Nazis -- most certainly not. Howard Zinn recently described this as our "inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are penned in by the arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, superior."

http://www.alternet.org/story/38604/could_bush_be_prosecuted_for_war_crimes

I doubt anybody will demand Obama be hauled before the Hague in leg irons; certainly not with the mid-terms in the offing (or am I being too cynical) and I'd rather the President deal with ISIS decisively. So, what gives?

[femmocrat]

1. He said he would be addressing the UN Security Council....

next week, I think? It was in reference to stopping the flow of foreign fighters to Syria and Iraq.

[kelly1mm]

4. I noticed that too. However, what struck me was that he did not say he would be

seeking UN security counsel approval. Probably cannot get UNSC approval as China/Russia would likely veto the action.

As to the OP's question, if President Obama commits war crimes he should be prosecuted like anyone else.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Obama would need to stand far back in the line of American war criminals, not to fret.

Let us get the ones we know of for sure from 13 years back, shall we?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. But is it a crime against international law? nt

[Fred Sanders]

9. In truth the list of international war crimes by America would fill a binder full of felony counts..

and yes,may international law definitions bombing the land of another sovereign nation without their consent is a war crime.

But America is the World Police Force, and only it has police powers given by implied consent of a
Lethe other military powers and the firepower to back it up.

It is the cost of consenting to the dollar being the world reserve currency, allowing near unlimited funding for that force.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. That's essentially saying talk of Bush war crimes is as meaningless as talk of Obama war crimes. nt

[Fred Sanders]

14. Talk of Obama in the same context as Bush is meaningless. In the same sentence an abomination.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Is the article cited accurate? nt

[Fred Sanders]

22. It is not the accuracy of the legal opinion in the article that you are losing the debate on, it is

the meaningless of the legal opinion in the context of other American war crimes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. So because one criminal went unprosecuted/unconvcted all subsequent criminal acts are ignored?

When did that ever become a legal defense?

OJ Simpson got away with murder so we have to set the other killers free. Very strange.

[Sunlei]

3. probably some RW will use that slime tactic.The President will ignore that waste of time distraction

as he should.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. That's not a rebuttal, that's an evasion and a rather defensive sounding one at that. nt

[Fred Sanders]

11. Slime tactic designed to distract, although it draws unwanted attention to the proven war crimes of

Bush and company, so not to fret, it will not go far.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. If the article cited is to be believed Obama attacking ISIS on Syrian territory would also

be a proven war crime.

[Fred Sanders]

17. Well, it is not just Obama but also Cameron, Harper, Merckel and a bunch of others.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. That changes what? Honestly, you sound like a partisan more than making an actual rebuttal. nt

[Fred Sanders]

23. Ad hominem fallacy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. If a crime is being committed how does having accomplices diminish the charge? nt

[Sunlei]

24. a good point, thanks!

[Cleita]

6. If things go badly it might give Boner more fuel for impeachment,

but I don't think they have the cojones to charge him with war crimes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. I don't think Congress indicts for international war crimes. Wouldn't that be the ICC? nt

[Cleita]

16. Yes, but I don't think we are a member nation.

We do try military for war crimes. The My Lai massacre comes to mind. As commander in chief I don't know if the military could try him or if they would. Congress can't do much more than impeach him.

[Fred Sanders]

19. Not if they authorize it by a vote of Congress.

[Cleita]

21. Congress is too chicken to do something that drastic. They might find that

they are vulnerable too from past votes.

[global1]

31. My Tin Foil Hat Is Constricting My Brain Here.....

I had a nightmare last night and it went something like this:

A way that Bush/Cheney can avoid ever being prosecuted for war crimes is if Obama (a Dem President) can be lured into doing the same thing that they did. Who would push to bring them (Bush/Cheney)to justice if one of their own was accused of doing the same thing that Bush/Cheney did. Hence a stalemate. It seems that the backers of Bush/Cheney enlisted Blackwater and had them reincarnated into ISIS/ISIL. It was this contrived terrorist group that was hired to commit atrocities such that the Dem President would be forced into the trap of doing what he is now doing and being accused of doing what Bush/Cheney did willfully and knowingly - thus having the war crimes label thrust upon him.

Then I woke up. Now you have to cut me some slack here. You know that when in the dream/nightmare state things seem crystal clear and when you wake up and you try and remember your dream/nightmare it comes out jumbled and incoherent. That's kind of where I'm at right now.

After I woke up - the above scenario is all that kind of came through to me - as shaky as it is. Then later in the day I hear that Cheney is going around pounding the war drums and blaming the President for the present situation that he and his dumb buddy Dubya got us into in the first place.

Whoa - and I'll be heading off to bed again soon. I don't know if I'll be able to sleep tonight.

[qazplm]

7. Both Iraq and Syria

have pretty explicitly said they welcome our help taking out ISIS.

Now, arming the rebels is a different thing, but if we rated arming rebels as a "war crime" then us, and a whole lot of other countries have been war criminals over the last 60-70 years.

[fadedrose]

13. I emailed my Rep and my 2 Senators

asking for a bill authorizing the President to either take action or not take action concerning ISIS, with full debate and discussion with details about what will or won't be permitted if so approved.....and who in the military should have leading roles. I want to watch the voting....

I'd like to see boots on the ground discussed, drones that kill, air strikes, funding, etc...and matters that could lead to the President being charged with war crimes....

Without congressional specific approval the President is setting himself up for a lot of blame and heartache for himself and his supporters if there's any failure.

Should it go okay, with no horrible aftermath, the parties can share the glory with him.

This is so hard for him to deal with because he is a man of peace.

[The Magistrate]

27. Not Really, Sir

Bush's invasion of Iraq met most of the standards for waging a war of aggression.

Iraq has been invaded, albeit by a non-state actor, but one with most of the accoutrements of a state, including conventional armed forces. Iraq has the right of self-defense, and is not required to seek any approval from the United Nations to exercise that right. Any power it asks for assistance in defending itself is similarly exercising the right of self-defense invoked by Iraq, in alliance with it.

Areas of Syria under control of the I.S.I.L. are by definition areas where Assad is incapable of exercising authority, and powerless to police. In such circumstance, a state which is attacked from those areas is fully entitled to engage those who attacked it, and attack them where they are based. It is neither aggression nor a violation of sovereignty.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. At least you're making an actual argument. However, just for the record --

It's "ma'am." Not a complaint, just sayin'.

[The Magistrate]

30. I Will Try And Remember, Ma'am

[treestar]

28. FFS

[MohRokTah]

32. DU UNRec. eom

[on point]

33. Not for attacking in Syria. That is response to attack. Now covering up Bush war crimes....