George W Bush Is A War Criminal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]naturalatlas82 wrote:
oboffill wrote:
War criminal or not, it is obvious that this administration has no f’ing clue as to how to invade a country.

LOL! You are funny. Maybe you should email GWB and give him your plan on how to invade a country :slight_smile: [/quote]

Unfortunately, naturalatlas82, I am no military strategist. However, I have drafted a letter to the President.

Dear GWB,
War is bad. Killing is bad. War should be the last resort against a nation. The pre-emptive strike on Iraq was NOT the last resort to ending the WMD threat (of which none has been discovered). You lied and cheated us. [The] Mission [has not been] Accomplished. You have not won the peace of the Iraquis as evidenced by the “insurgents”, Abu Gharib torture, Guantanamo torture, and zero international support.

There is a huge problem with the lack of soldiers in Iraq. Many military types have addressed the need of more troops. While a draft is inconceivable, international support is nil, the best solution would be to send your supporters into Iraq to ‘fight the good fight.’ Start with your two daughters. Election results show that 60 million support you. I’m sure there are a few able bodied men and women who could sign up. Hell, you even have some supporters on the T-nation forum who, judging by their comments, would LOVE nothing more than support the cause and fight for their country. Don’t worry Mr. Bush, these patriots bleed red, white, and blue as you will see from the medical photos.

However, none of that matters.

YOU SAVED THE UNBORN BABIES!!! I love you, Dubya.

Sincerely,
OBoffill

22

Flanker & obofill,

The 2 of you seem to be the same type of liberals that believe all criminals can be rehabilitated and that attacks of terrorism are purely attacks against conservatives. I have news for you, laws and rules were made for the protection of society as a whole and those that disregard the RIGHTS of others should be made to suffer the consequences. The same goes for terrorists and terrorists states. They do not care what your political view is, to them you are an American and as such should be eradicated. I am sure that your opinion would change if you or a loved one was ever a victim of a violent crime or terrorism.

Flanker if you believe that the world has a right to hate America as a whole then may I suggest France as your next residence.

23

Flanker,

“1) Regarding the Geneva Convention is the United States the sole arbiter of who is a terrorist or not?”

Not the sole arbiter - but we do have discretion.

“You cannot just invade a country and declare that all those who oppose you are terrorists and hence not protected by any kind of law.”

Of course not, there is a list of criteria that armed combatants must meet in order to enjoy the privilege of Geneva coverage in war. But it is a quid pro quo - they must behave a certain way in order to get treated a certain way. Providing that they do not, they fall outside Geneva coverage and put themselves at the whim of their captors.

“A large number of innocent people where tortured in Abu Ghraib.”

While I don’t dispute this, isn’t it interesting that more people are crying over the ‘horrors’ of Abu Ghraib than the torture chambers and slaughter houses being uncovered by the troops daily? Abu Ghraib was bad, but it was largely humiliation - no eyeballs were extracted by fencing wire and no acid baths were had.

A few rogue bad soldiers acting like high school bullies compared to systematic and institutionalized torture. Not even close.

“Furthermore, many of the prisoners in Guantanamo can be considered to have been part of an Afghani army and hence should be covered by the Geneva convention.”

Did they wear appropriate apparel displaying their national army insignia? Did they meet the other criteria laid out by Geneva? If I’m all for treating them in accordance. If not, they lose the privilege.

“2) I have not heard any good argument justifying the legality of our invasion of Iraq. If your going to use UN resolution 1441 as justification thats an interesting choice. First because the neocons despise the UN.”

Doesn’t matter. 1441 did not authorize war, nor did it prohibit war. It was a laundry list of condemnations. What authorized war was the breach of a conditional ceasefire long forgotten from the first Gulf War. In fact, we - meaning the US and UK - had been at war with Iraq for the better part of 12 years. The Iraq invasion was an end to that war.

Second, assuming you are right that the invasion was patently ‘illegal’ and so many countries opposed it on those grounds, where is the action against it? Isn’t that what the UN is for, to censure countries that breach the legal peace and to ultimately deter them with military force? Where is the indictment? Where is the military action against the US?

If the legal case against the war is such a slam dunk, why hasn’t anyone moved against us?

“…because the US has violated plenty of UN resolutions, World Court decisions, etc. Does that mean an invasion of the US is justified?”

Military force is only sanctioned when the country breaches a resolution brought before a certain Chapter of the UN Convention (Seven, if memory holds). The burden is on you to show where the US has failed that. And, if such a breach exists, why hasn’t anyone taken the US to task? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Fact is, I am arguing within the confines of the strict UN ‘law’, which I frankly don’t think means much. Countries - not just the US - use the UN when it serves their purpose and ignore it when it stands in the way of national interest. And that’s no big surprise. The UN was never supposed to be a world democracy.

The US did a hell of a lot more procedurally ending the war against Saddam Hussein than we did in Bosnia, and I didn’t hear the bawling that I hear now.

And in light of the information suggesting several UNSC members could have had their vote compromised by their financial dealings with Saddam, the process isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

So, in sum - GWB a war criminal? Fine. Show me the trial, show me the decision naming him a war criminal, and feel free to come get him.

But your gun’s going off half-cocked here, Flanker.

24

rainjack

here is a link about neo-conservatives

Its the best that I can find that doesn’t accuse them of eating babies.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms
.php?story_id=2661&popup_delayed=1

25

[quote]Niko wrote:
Flanker & obofill,

The 2 of you seem to be the same type of liberals that believe all criminals can be rehabilitated and that attacks of terrorism are purely attacks against conservatives. I have news for you, laws and rules were made for the protection of society as a whole and those that disregard the RIGHTS of others should be made to suffer the consequences. The same goes for terrorists and terrorists states. They do not care what your political view is, to them you are an American and as such should be eradicated. I am sure that your opinion would change if you or a loved one was ever a victim of a violent crime or terrorism.

Flanker if you believe that the world has a right to hate America as a whole then may I suggest France as your next residence.[/quote]

Niko, I can tell you are a great person. It is evident that you care about people with genuine care. I love you for that.

However, Iraq was NOT the culprit of 9/11. Saddam Hussein was never even condemned by the current administration as causing 9/11. Osama Bin Laden was responsible for the loss of innocent life. It is HE who we should be concentrating on, not the Iraquis.

26

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Flanker,

“1) Regarding the Geneva Convention is the United States the sole arbiter of who is a terrorist or not?”

Not the sole arbiter - but we do have discretion.

“You cannot just invade a country and declare that all those who oppose you are terrorists and hence not protected by any kind of law.”

Of course not, there is a list of criteria that armed combatants must meet in order to enjoy the privilege of Geneva coverage in war. But it is a quid pro quo - they must behave a certain way in order to get treated a certain way. Providing that they do not, they fall outside Geneva coverage and put themselves at the whim of their captors.

“A large number of innocent people where tortured in Abu Ghraib.”

While I don’t dispute this, isn’t it interesting that more people are crying over the ‘horrors’ of Abu Ghraib than the torture chambers and slaughter houses being uncovered by the troops daily? Abu Ghraib was bad, but it was largely humiliation - no eyeballs were extracted by fencing wire and no acid baths were had.

A few rogue bad soldiers acting like high school bullies compared to systematic and institutionalized torture. Not even close.

“Furthermore, many of the prisoners in Guantanamo can be considered to have been part of an Afghani army and hence should be covered by the Geneva convention.”

Did they wear appropriate apparel displaying their national army insignia? Did they meet the other criteria laid out by Geneva? If I’m all for treating them in accordance. If not, they lose the privilege.

“2) I have not heard any good argument justifying the legality of our invasion of Iraq. If your going to use UN resolution 1441 as justification thats an interesting choice. First because the neocons despise the UN.”

Doesn’t matter. 1441 did not authorize war, nor did it prohibit war. It was a laundry list of condemnations. What authorized war was the breach of a conditional ceasefire long forgotten from the first Gulf War. In fact, we - meaning the US and UK - had been at war with Iraq for the better part of 12 years. The Iraq invasion was an end to that war.

Second, assuming you are right that the invasion was patently ‘illegal’ and so many countries opposed it on those grounds, where is the action against it? Isn’t that what the UN is for, to censure countries that breach the legal peace and to ultimately deter them with military force? Where is the indictment? Where is the military action against the US?

If the legal case against the war is such a slam dunk, why hasn’t anyone moved against us?

“…because the US has violated plenty of UN resolutions, World Court decisions, etc. Does that mean an invasion of the US is justified?”

Military force is only sanctioned when the country breaches a resolution brought before a certain Chapter of the UN Convention (Seven, if memory holds). The burden is on you to show where the US has failed that. And, if such a breach exists, why hasn’t anyone taken the US to task? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Fact is, I am arguing within the confines of the strict UN ‘law’, which I frankly don’t think means much. Countries - not just the US - use the UN when it serves their purpose and ignore it when it stands in the way of national interest. And that’s no big surprise. The UN was never supposed to be a world democracy.

The US did a hell of a lot more procedurally ending the war against Saddam Hussein than we did in Bosnia, and I didn’t hear the bawling that I hear now.

And in light of the information suggesting several UNSC members could have had their vote compromised by their financial dealings with Saddam, the process isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

So, in sum - GWB a war criminal? Fine. Show me the trial, show me the decision naming him a war criminal, and feel free to come get him.

But your gun’s going off half-cocked here, Flanker.[/quote]

Thunderbolt23,

Plenty of people have come out against the US. Kofi Annan declared the US led war against Iraq illegal. As for why noone has brought GWB to trial. Maybe its because he is incredibly powerful. Just another case of the US believing might makes right.

27

Niko,

Hate to break it to you buddy, but France is not alone in “hating America.” In fact, we’re playing into Chirac’s hands by allowing him to play the role of David against our Goliath. I’m Swiss-American and frankly I have a great deal of concern with French foreign policy especially with their neo-colonialism in Africa. A case can certainly be made for the French complicity in the Rwandan genocide. However,when it comes to the legality of the Iraq occupation (which it is despite the protestations of Zell Miller) I’m firmly on the side of the Quai D’Orsay.

28

Flanker. Attempt to actually read the responses to your post before responding. It takes a little intelligence, not just some blind hate, and opinion based solely on emotion. If your facts are wrong, then your emotions are misplaced.

[quote]Flanker wrote:

  1. Regarding the Geneva Convention is the United States the sole arbiter of who is a terrorist or not? Within the confines of international law we certainly are not. You cannot just invade a country and declare that all those who oppose you are terrorists and hence not protected by any kind of law. A large number of innocent people where tortured in Abu Ghraib. Furthermore, many of the prisoners in Guantanamo can be considered to have been part of an Afghani army and hence should be covered by the Geneva convention. [/quote]

What is the Geneva Convention? The rules that only the United States are supposed to follow? Anyway, again there are times that the Geneva Convention does not apply. Like if a person does not wear a uniform, or fakes death.

Now since you are bringing up Abu Graib, which you obviously don’t understand, it was the United States Military that put a stop to what was going on there, and the soldiers were brought up on charges. What else is supposed to be done? What actions are we supposed to take other then what has been taken?

Really? What UN resolutions has the US violated? Be specific, and don?t add the ones that were vetoed. Also why the guilt until proven innocent on this action? If there is guilt, and you are calling it illegal, prove it.

Again you didn’t read my response. We had a cease fire agreement, which they violated daily. Second we got UN approval. What people are paying attention to is that Bush tried to get a second approval that he didn’t need for more political strength in the matter. This was the mistake.

Why should we? The article link is nothing more then a he said she said kind of thing. You should have clicked on the link to the Q&A section:

Where it states, “There is no scientifically proven evidence that it is harmful.”

Ah, enough proof for me.

Again don?t forget that we get radiation just from the environment. You need to show that it is actually beyond the range of safety, and proven to be affecting people negatively. Not some anecdotal evidence that could easily be caused by other factors.

Who the hell said that?

[quote]Lastly, here is quote from Tacitus that I think sums up the Falluja debacle.

“They made a desert and called it peace”[/quote]

Uh yeah, right. What is the Fallujah debacle anyway? That we stopped a city from being a terrorist haven? That we found the buildings used for beheading innocent people?

Saddam killed an estimated 1 million people, and you are complaining that we took him out? Sounds more like you are supporting the war criminal.

29

Mage, let me attempt to respond to your counterarguments.

  1. Abu Ghraib: What I would like to see happen is a large scale independent investigation of US torture both in Abu Ghraib and by proxy in our allies prisons, i.e. Uzbekistan, Israel, etc. Furthermore, I would like to see those at the top of chain of command face punishment not just the grunts. Memos at the highest level of government have tacitedly endorsed the use of torture. Rumsfeld should resign, either he encouraged the use of torture or he was unable to prevent it. In both cases he should be unemployed.

  2. Examples of US violations of UN resolutions: I’m so glad you asked. While the neocons love to harp about Iraqs violations they never talk about how our client states also violate UN resolutions. Morroco has illegaly occupied the Western Sahara in defiance of the UN, Indonesia occupied East Timor until 1999, Turkey occupies N. Cyprus, and of course Israel is violating a host of UN resolutions 446 and 465 as examples. All these countries are recipiants of US largesse and tacit support of their human rights violations and blatant disregard for international law. Finally there is the case of Nicaragua, where the US consistantly thumbed its nose at international law and opinion.
    June 1986
    Nicaragua appeals to the World Court in The Hague to end US efforts to destabilize its government. The court rules in its favor, ordering America to end its interventionist policy in Nicaragua and to pay massive reparations. America ignores the World Court’s ruling, not paying a cent and instead escalates the war. [Keen, 1992; Rosset and Vendermeer, 1986, pg 289-293]
    1987
    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) decides on the amount owed by the US to Nicaragua?$17 billion. The US continues to ignore the ruling. [Counterpunch, 9/13/2002; Tiscali Encyclopedia, n.d.]
    1987
    The UN General Assembly calls on the US to comply with the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) judgment that the US pay Nicaragua $17 billion in reparations. The US continues to ignore the ruling. The UN will repeat its demand the following year. [Sources: UN General Assembly Resolution 43/11, UN General Assembly Resolution 42/18]

Now, I am off topic here since this has nothing to do with GWB, but again many members of the current administration were involved with these crimes. Of course keep in mind the US has a veto on the security council which it has consistantly used to protect its ally, Israel, from condemnations of its human rights violations.

  1. Falluja: The attack on Falluja was denounced by Kofi Annan amongst others. Look at pictures of what remains, we destroyed the city in order to save it. War is peace. Not to mention we destroyed all the cities utilities are now not doing anything to solve the humanitarian crisis that has arisen. The Marine Corps is a blunt tool of destruction; it kills people and blows stuff up. Not a good tool for building a democracy.

  2. Who do you think was funding Hussein during the period when he killed the most people? We were! Reagan gave billions in aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war despite the fact we knew Hussein was a murderous tyrant. Bob Dole visited Saddam in April 1990, he even assured him that a commentator on Voice of American who had been critical of him had been removed. This was after Saddam had gassed the Kurds. The US has a long and shameful history of helping murderers and tyrants; Marcos, Baby Doc, Ceausescu, Sese Seko, and Noriega. After everything we’ve done, we can not just turn around and declare we will now fight wars for democracy. Wake up!

Flanker

30

You know, this is lively and all, but there is one thing that keeps cropping up as if it matters…

Why aren’t you complaining about Saddam or the atrocities his group committed?

Does this actually have anything to do with the proposed issue? I’m guessing vicious and lawless behavior does not come as a surprise when it was conducted by Saddam’s henchmen. If it comes from certain other sources, it might be a surprise. Especially if that same source claims to represent the side of justice.

That being said, I’m not trying to support the claims made. Whether or not Bush could actually be indicted and if so actually convicted is probably not something we will ever have to worry about.

31

Flanker,

After reading your responses I am at a loss as to why you don’t denounce your US citizenship, and leave this country for one that’s political views are more in line with yours? Could it be all the liberties and modern conveniences that the USA offers? Maybe the realative security provided in the USA, compared to the rest of the world?! I just don’t understand, please enlighten us to why you remain in this country and keep your citizenship when you apparently despise everything we stand for.

32

Vroom,

I’m not denying the Saddam Hussein was and still is a murderous brutal thug. But we have to ask ourselves why does the current administration feel the need to constantly mention this fact? Why do they never talk about US complicity in Saddam’s crimes? Why do they never talk about war crimes in US client states? Why do they feel laws do not apply to them? Why can Israel have WMD and noone else in the Middle East? Why did we invade an oil rich country?

Saddam is evil, I do not think anyone is going to argue to the contrary. So why does it need to be debated?

33

Much of this has already been said, but I wanted to give it a bit more.

[quote]Flanker wrote:

  1. Regarding the Geneva Convention is the United States the sole arbiter of who is a terrorist or not? Within the confines of international law we certainly are not. You cannot just invade a country and declare that all those who oppose you are terrorists and hence not protected by any kind of law. A large number of innocent people where tortured in Abu Ghraib. Furthermore, many of the prisoners in Guantanamo can be considered to have been part of an Afghani army and hence should be covered by the Geneva convention. [/quote]

I really wonder how much you know about international law…

  1. This issued is covered by Geneva Convention IV, Art. 4(2). The terrorits do not meet the criteria in sub. a (not commanded by a person reponsibile for subordinates), sub. b (do not have a fixed symbol recognizable at a distance), sub. c (do not carry arms openly), OR sub. d (do not conduct operations according to laws of war). You must donfomr to all of these in order to qualify. Thus, even if they were carrying arms openly, it wouldn’t count. We didn’t declare them non-privy to the convention; their actions did.

  2. Abu Graib → First, the Geneva convention could arguably not be applicable. It only applies to International Conflicts. At that point, Iraq had soverignty and we were not in conflict with them, and thus would not be applicable.

Beyond that, it has not affect on Bush, unless he commanded that the torture be done. Since this is a treaty, any claim would need to be brought by the country. Iraq could sue the United States. If you were to bypass this method and go to the International Criminal Court (which you couldn’t because the United States is not a party and the treaty is not in power), you couldn’t even prosecute those who did the torture because they are being prosecuted in the United States.

3.) Guantanamo → Actually no, see #1 above. Furthermore, the Taliban was not the recognized government of Afghanistan (except for something like 2 countries). As such, they were were NOT fighthing for a government.

I will give them to you. There are two legally authorized justifications.

1.) Article 51 of the U.N. charter protects the “inherent right of … self-defense”. Since Iraq was a threat to the United States (at least that was the case that was made), we had the inherent right to exercise self defense. While it is true that it was preemptive self defense, that is not illegal per se. Furthermore, Iraq had targeted our planes and taken other hostile action toward the United State. Additionally, the building up of troops/supplies may be considered an act of aggression. Iraq was working on illegal missles (which were used against the United States).

2.) Leading up to the first Gulf War, the Security Council passed Resolution 678, which autorized states participating with Kuwait “all necessary means” to accomplish the goals. After the war, Security Council resolution 686 and 687, which required surrender and the allowing of inspections. It also kept the 678 powers in force (until an affirmative vote by the Security Council to give them up). 686 also required that Iraq “cease hostile or provocative actiosn by its forces against Member States inluding missile attacks …”.

Thus, America, as a party member, still had the right to use the “all force necessary” to effectuate Resolutions 686 and 687. They did not even need the Security Council’s approval. The Resolution was set up so countries would have the power unless taken away. They were not taken away, and thus the countries have the power.

3.) You claim we violated Security Council resolutions? If you believe so, you’re a dumbass. America will never violate one. We have a veto, thus the Security Council will NEVER do something we don’t like. Why would we ever need to violate one of its provisions. Not only do you fail to support the statement, it is illogical as well.

4.) There is no “World Court”. If you are talking about the International Court of Justice, I would like to know what you are talking about. There are a lot of nuances about the ICJ and when it does/doesn’t have jurisdiction. I wouldn’t be surprised if you are citing things that were not in its jurisdiction…assuming you had cited something at all.

I’m guessing you’re trying to refer to Part V of Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Convention. That protocol only covers asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, biological weapons. This does not cover this provision. Even the use of nuclear weapons is not a war crime in certain situations, so the use of a shell hardened by uranium certainly is not.

If you are going to say that Bush or the United States “violated international law”, don’t you think it is important to know what international law actually says? It’s clear that you havent.

34

[quote]Niko wrote:
Flanker,

After reading your responses I am at a loss as to why you don’t denounce your US citizenship, and leave this country for one that’s political views are more in line with yours? Could it be all the liberties and modern conveniences that the USA offers? Maybe the realative security provided in the USA, compared to the rest of the world?! I just don’t understand, please enlighten us to why you remain in this country and keep your citizenship when you apparently despise everything we stand for.[/quote]

Because a true patriot attempts to reform his country. Because one day I hope to be able to love both my country and justice. Because it would be cowardly to run instead of staying and standing up for what I believe in.

35

The president can be impeached. He isn’t too powerful to be impeached. Bill Clinton wasn’t too powerful to be impeached.

Next topic: Abu Dahbie prison (lol). I don’t think the soldiers that posed for the pictures were right. Does that mean the whole Army or Marines did that stuff? No. Also, maybe we should investigate all the beheadings the terrorists are doing. You forgot about that part.

Israel is the only “sane” Middle East country. Letting other countries have WMD is like handing a 5 year old a lit stick of TNT. Good things won’t happen. The United States is powerful. With power comes responsibility. I bet if there is ever a time that some tyrant wants to come over to France and take it over, who is the first person they are going to ask help from? The USA!

Its weird. Some people don’t want us around, yet they want aid from us (from famine, dry spells, etc).

36

I’m amazed by some of responses to this post.

Does anyone realize that Saddam has been in custody for quite some time now?

Does anyone remember why we went to Iraq in the first place?

Regardless what other nations do it’s up to the US to lead by example. Saddam “the villain” is gone. At this point these so called “insurgents” are just ordinary Iraqi citizens who just want us OUT.

I guess we can do what ever we want since they aren’t wearing uniforms and every Muslim defending their country is a terrorist. It’s amazing how we know that everyone we kill is a terrorist/insurgent and not a civilian, despite the lack of uniforms.

The Pentagon has admitted to using Napalm in Baghdad…a banned weapon. It’s OK though because it was only used on terrorists.

The reason for going into Iraq has long since past…how we are fighting terrorism at this point is way beyond me.

37

How can you argue this convincing argument, Flanker? :wink:

38

Flanker,

Sorry, I was speaking to those that kept bringing up the notion that Saddam was bad in criticism of your post… not trying to bring it up as something you needed to address.

The point I obviously failed to make was that it has nothing to do with what you are trying to say.

39

NaturalAtlas,

When you figure out what a “chain of command” is, let us know…

40

[quote]Niko wrote:
Flanker,

After reading your responses I am at a loss as to why you don’t denounce your US citizenship, and leave this country for one that’s political views are more in line with yours? Could it be all the liberties and modern conveniences that the USA offers? Maybe the realative security provided in the USA, compared to the rest of the world?! I just don’t understand, please enlighten us to why you remain in this country and keep your citizenship when you apparently despise everything we stand for.[/quote]

I resent your comments. There is no “WE” in America. FYI, 57 million Americans do not belong to your “WE.”