Seriously, should Bush and Rumsfeld be tried for war crimes ?

[kentuck]

I heard a comment on TV this morning attributed to Jesse Jackson who said that very thing. Why should they be tried for war crimes? That is a very serious charge. That is what they have Milosovic in the Hague for at this very time. Have Bush and Rumsfeld done anything equivalent to Milosevic?

Anyway, they are Republicans. And they are Americans. They cannot be tried for "war crimes". They are above the law. They make the laws. Just because they unilaterally invaded another country without legitimate cause and killed many thousands of innocents does not make them war criminals, does it? And just because they have created tensions around the world and broadend fissures amonst nations as no one has since Hitler and Mussolini, shouldn't we defend them? Aren't American leaders exempt from international law?

[bryant69]

1. Hmmmmm.

Well, yes. In effect American leaders are above the law. Like it or not (and I have to say I have strong misgivings about it). We occupy a certain place in the world right now, and part of that place is that we are above international law. I'm not saying we should be, but I am saying we are. President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are far more likely to face American courts than they are international ones.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[kentuck]

6. So they are above international law...

And I'm sure they agree with you.

[bryant69]

11. Allow me to repeat

I'm not saying I agree with that; i'm talking about practicalities.

International Law is kind of a new idea anyway (although it has roots in early ideas). And it's one that the United States has always had trouble with; it's in our nature.

[kentuck]

14. Allow me to clarify...

As you say, it is an idea the US has had trouble with....However, that does not mean the rest of the world has dismissed it. I suppose it's good tha we believe as our leaders believe - that we are exempt. That makes their job a lot easier, I would think.

[bryant69]

16. OK

So if we all believe really hard that international laws apply to the united States than they will apply to the United States.

The truth is laws only work in one of two situations

1. The subject wants to obey the law because he believes it is the right thing to do.

2. The subject has to believe the law, because there is someone around who has the power to force them to do it.

In other words, I don't steal because I think it's wrong, and even if I didn't think it was wrong, I know that there are such things as cops and judges and jails to at least partially dissuade me.

Now in the case of President Bush, situation 1 clearly doesn't apply. So that leaves situation 2, and it's clear that their doesn't exist the international will to force America to hand him over for war crimes.

If Kerry wins election and takes power, well, the ground rules change. I have a pretty firm conviction that Kerry will choose to respect international law, but I don't think he will turn Bush over to any international tribunal. I think it would be a hard sell for him to hold Bush Responsible before an American judicial proceeding (too much like playing politics with justice).

[jobycom]

18. That's our job, then

To make Bush afraid that international law will apply to him. Vote him out, pressure Congress and the new president to punish him. Write letters and articles. Etc.

Excellent points, btw.

There are only three forces strong enough to force Bush or any future president to obey international law: the American government, the American people, or a coalition of our enemies. One will eventually do it. That may not mean Bush or Cheney stand trial, only that there is an ultimate limit to how far he can go. Part of our job as citizens who see what's happening is to keep the pressure on.

So where I disagree with you is on the basic premise that since it won't happen we shouldn't try, or shouldn't want it. Just because we will fail, probably, doesn't mean it is not our duty to try.

[forgethell]

19. If they have broken the law

American courts will take care of them. As the US has has not agreed to be bound by the ICC treaty, it IS exempt. No amount of 'world opinion' makes international law, only treaties, or, hey, a military victory gives a certain amount of authority to a military tribunal. so you guys have fun, but * will NEVER stand before an international tribunal. ex post facto, don't you know. If you are really serious about the troubles that * causes in the world, vote him out, and let him go home. The President answers to the American people, not 'world opinion'.

[drthais]

2. very funny

at first I thought you were asking a serious question

[indigobusiness]

3. If the poo shits...

wear it.

[indigobusiness]

5. I meant foo...

of course.

[Lou_C]

4. I think that they should be charged with war crimes

We will never know the whole truth about what has gone on in Iraq. It's a war that shouldn't have been started in the first place and it has caused so many deaths and so much destruction.

I want to see * and the whole gang be charged with war crimes.

[Delano]

7. YES, they should, but it has little to do with Abu Ghraib

The should be tried for an illegal invasion of a sovereign country with no provocation. Every Iraqi civilian and every US soldier that has been killed is a murder victim in the name of their greed and hubris.

They have set such a horrrible precedent with this war. I realize that the US invaded and took over countries long ago, but in the post WWI period that was supposed to be over. Even in Vietnam, we at least had the lame phony excuse of "holding back communism".

In Iraq, there IS no excuse that will wash with the international community. EVERYONE in the world knows why we really went there, and NOBODY buys it as a liberation.

Thanks to Bush, I can no longer teach my kids that the US is different because we don't attack or invade other countries without provocation.

[indigobusiness]

17. MIsrepresentaions, mischaracterizations, and outright lies

are serious...especially in the justification of war.
The secrecy and far of transparency of this administration says volumes about their own perceptions of their own actions.

If America stands for this, it will soon fall. Mark my words. This is the brink.

[madrchsod]

8. no

[indigobusiness]

9. If tens of thousands of innocent lives lost, ruined or displaced by

an ill-conceived, illicit military adventure of sheer hubris, ego and vanity...if this doesn't meet the standard of "war crime", then Hitler should be ressurrected and made a Saint.

[jobycom]

10. Try em and fry em

"Fry" being metaphorical for throw the book at them.

Yes, they are war criminals. They lied to the US Congress, the US people, and to the UN. They invaded a nation without UN approval, they slaughtered hundreds of thousands of human beings, and every excuse they gave for the invasion has been proven an outright lie. When Hussein offered to give in to every demand, they ignored and invaded anyway. The invasion was a land grab, nothing more.

In addition, they have ordered the violations of the rights of thousands of prisoners, not just in Abu Graib, and have tried to play Hitlerian semantics games by relabelling POWs as "unlawful combatants," and nonsense like that.

THEY are exactly what the Geneva Convention was created to oppose.

[davekriss]

12. Seriously, yes (n/t)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

13. effing A!

[lapislzi]

15. Yes

If the UN had any kind of authority, it would impose sanctions on the US and institute a war crimes tribunal.

Of course, the US with its security council veto will ensure that that will never happen.

There is no question in my mind that the bush cabal are war criminals.

[Vladimir]

20. Good bit of sarcasm

Milosevic wishes he was in their league

[Tellurian]

21. The answer is simple. What would they do to Clinton if the atrocities

happened on his watch?

[calimary]

28. Check MATE.

And I would vote a resounding, shouted-from-the-rooftops YES!!!!!

[kodi]

22. yes.

but if the americans get to him first he might be hung as a traitor, after of course, his impeachment, conviction and further conviction for treason.

what ruin bush has wrought is done only once in an empire's history. of such destructiveness have his actions been both at home and abroad that america will begin now to recede in rapid decline, leaving the world and history to bear witness to the stupidity of such feckless men.

[dkamin]

23. Yep

I was just thinking about this. If Kerry wins, what will he do?

What we're seeing now clearly qualifies as war crimes. I suspect that we're going to find out that senior administration officials knew about and supported this type of torture, as it appears to be widespread in our "war on terror". Puts us in a pickle. Especially if Bush et al are tried and convicted in absentia for war crimes. Potentially, this could create a huge mess w/r/t to the United Nations (Republicans would certainly want to pull out at that point), our international standing, etc.

Check out my blog. http://www.skydiver-salad.blogspot.com

[ladjf]

26. Kerry won't do anything about Bush. However,

if Dean had been elected, that's another matter and possibly contributing reason that he was thrown out so quickly as a viable candidate.

[dpibel]

27. He'll have no choice

Unless Kerry can figure out a way around presidential pardons. The little man will follow in his daddy's footsteps and pardon everyone around him. Some of them will probably take some contempt of court or perjury hits, but nobody major will go down.

Since this gang is into unprecedented activities, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Fierce Warrior Chieftain pardon himself on the way out.

[Solly Mack]

24. Yes, but, first and foremost, for an illegal invasion of a sovereign

nation that had not attacked America.

Then face charges for all that came from the illegal invasion


Much like having an illegitmate president to take office was the umbrella crime that allowed all the crimes that followed...the big war crime was invading Iraq to begin with...


So, really, we can trace all this to the SCOTUS, Jeb Bush , and Katherine Harris.

[Bridget Burke]

29. I looked up the Nuremberg Trials for another thread.

www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm

Essentially, the first charge against the major criminals (Goering, etc.) was starting an aggressive war. "War Crimes" & "Crimes Against Humanity" followed.

Other trials were held for minor criminals. Doctors who experimented on prisoners, industrialists who used slave labor, etc.

Incidentally, both major & minor Nazis were treated better in captivitiy than the Iraqis we've seen in those pictures.

[historian]

25. they should be tried for war crimes yes

Remember after the 2nd world war the top nazis were tried for war crimes. In an attempt to deal fairly with them, and with no precedence for trying top govt officials for crimes, a new standard was set - planning an aggressive war against other nations is a crime in itself. That was done here and, on top of that, was done in a calculated manner based on deceit and lies.
bush, rumsfeld and cheney all stated unequivocally that they knew where the wmd's were and all had to recant on their claims.
There is more than enough to prosecute them with