Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[Kirkland Laing]

In war all parties engage in actions which could be described as "war crimes" (depending on your personal definition I guess). However, only the losers get tried. To paraphrase Robert McNamera, if the U.S. had lost the Second War War those responsible for the firebombings of Japan would considered war criminals...

For my answer: No, they should not be tried. It would be absurd and who has the political authority to prosecute them? Surely not the U.N. Any kind of "trial" would just be a useless exercise of political showmanship.

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Holland, has the authority to try them, like it tried Slobodan Milosevic for ethnic cleansing. Every country in the world is a signatory to the ICC treaty and accepts its authority in these matters apart from the failed state Somalia and the rogue states North Korea and, uh, America.

[CFH]

In war all parties engage in actions which could be described as "war crimes" (depending on your personal definition I guess). However, only the losers get tried. To paraphrase Robert McNamera, if the U.S. had lost the Second War War those responsible for the firebombings of Japan would considered war criminals...

For my answer: No, they should not be tried. It would be absurd and who has the political authority to prosecute them? Surely not the U.N. Any kind of "trial" would just be a useless exercise of political showmanship.

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Holland, has the authority to try them, like it tried Slobodan Milosevic for ethnic cleansing. Every country in the world is a signatory to the ICC treaty and accepts its authority in these matters apart from the failed state Somalia and the rogue states North Korea and, uh, America.

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

[Gandalf]

In war all parties engage in actions which could be described as "war crimes" (depending on your personal definition I guess). However, only the losers get tried. To paraphrase Robert McNamera, if the U.S. had lost the Second War War those responsible for the firebombings of Japan would considered war criminals...

For my answer: No, they should not be tried. It would be absurd and who has the political authority to prosecute them? Surely not the U.N. Any kind of "trial" would just be a useless exercise of political showmanship.

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Holland, has the authority to try them, like it tried Slobodan Milosevic for ethnic cleansing. Every country in the world is a signatory to the ICC treaty and accepts its authority in these matters apart from the failed state Somalia and the rogue states North Korea and, uh, America.

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

On your final point, there is no doubt that the political elite would fight tooth and nail not to allow it to happen as it would set a scary precedent for them. But I'm sure that if you were to conduct polls amongst the general population of both the U.S and U.K you would see a lot of people indicating that these men should be held accountable for the acts they have commited. As far as I recall most polls showed that support for the war was wavering prior to the invasion and world wide there was little support for the actions the U.S. and Britain were about to embark upon. In the eyes of the world, these people probably are war criminals.

[Gandalf]

This pre war article shows that only 25% of the British public thought that there was enough evidence for a pre-emptive strike. And we went along and invaded anyway. Now we know that there really wasn't any evidence and Blair openly lied in order to try and justify going ahead and invading. Totally uncool.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Polls find Europeans oppose Iraq war

[Youngblood]

While I agree about the facts stated, the deception, true reasoning for Iraq and all of it, as CFH has stated, it simply will not happen. SO we can play should we all day, but really, it is just a case of venting your frustrations and anger on a personal level. Barring a world war in the very near future to which all the powers that currently be lose, and there is a complete new world order, it isn't going to happen. So not going to get in a lather about it.

And we in Canada were asked much like the UK was to join in, to just believe the US intelligence (to be provided later) on the WMD's, and we didn't Show us, don't tell us. Not sure how folks think we are often spineless as a nation. Was a pretty bold play imo, that turned out to be the correct play.

We were all for going after the true terrorists, and to Afghanistan we went. Sadly under-trouped and under-planned due all the focus on Iraq. Now that situation is a clusterfuk shitfest too. It could have been dealt with in a unified mass campaign at the time of many nations, but no. Just a mess now also.

[CFH]

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Holland, has the authority to try them, like it tried Slobodan Milosevic for ethnic cleansing. Every country in the world is a signatory to the ICC treaty and accepts its authority in these matters apart from the failed state Somalia and the rogue states North Korea and, uh, America.

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

On your final point, there is no doubt that the political elite would fight tooth and nail not to allow it to happen as it would set a scary precedent for them. But I'm sure that if you were to conduct polls amongst the general population of both the U.S and U.K you would see a lot of people indicating that these men should be held accountable for the acts they have commited. As far as I recall most polls showed that support for the war was wavering prior to the invasion and world wide there was little support for the actions the U.S. and Britain were about to embark upon. In the eyes of the world, these people probably are war criminals.

I would be absolutely astounded if any more than a very small minority of Americans felt that Bush should be tried for war crimes. I have no idea what the sentiment is like in the U.K.

[Gandalf]

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

On your final point, there is no doubt that the political elite would fight tooth and nail not to allow it to happen as it would set a scary precedent for them. But I'm sure that if you were to conduct polls amongst the general population of both the U.S and U.K you would see a lot of people indicating that these men should be held accountable for the acts they have commited. As far as I recall most polls showed that support for the war was wavering prior to the invasion and world wide there was little support for the actions the U.S. and Britain were about to embark upon. In the eyes of the world, these people probably are war criminals.

I would be absolutely astounded if any more than a very small minority of Americans felt that Bush should be tried for war crimes. I have no idea what the sentiment is like in the U.K.

I could see the U.S. arguing more highly for it than you are suggesting, but that is just speculation on my part. I have no actual polls to go on, it would be interesting to find out. Amongst the UK, I would speculate that it would be far higher. We were far less willing to go along with the war and sentiments were far more in line with international sentiment. Even with all the drivel coming from the media and the government trying to build it all up, we were just not so into it. The fall out was inevitable and with all the bullshit now having been made known, I imagine people are angrier than ever. The U.S. population was seemingly far easier to dupe and I struggle to see the fallout having the same kind of impact.

[Gandalf]

Iraq inquiry told U.S. mentioned link to Saddam Hussein within hours of 9/11 attacks | Mail Online

Even if this inquiry doesn't lead to anything more, it has at least been quite damning. We don't have access to polls showing public sentiment right now, but at each of the newspapers there are scores and scores of comments from people and 95% of them are angry and upset at what has taken place. Some seem to be arguing that war crimes charges should go ahead out there too.

[Scrap]

Winners write History

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Winners write History

true dat.

And everything to do with prevailing episteme.

[Kirkland Laing]

In war all parties engage in actions which could be described as "war crimes" (depending on your personal definition I guess). However, only the losers get tried. To paraphrase Robert McNamera, if the U.S. had lost the Second War War those responsible for the firebombings of Japan would considered war criminals...

For my answer: No, they should not be tried. It would be absurd and who has the political authority to prosecute them? Surely not the U.N. Any kind of "trial" would just be a useless exercise of political showmanship.

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Holland, has the authority to try them, like it tried Slobodan Milosevic for ethnic cleansing. Every country in the world is a signatory to the ICC treaty and accepts its authority in these matters apart from the failed state Somalia and the rogue states North Korea and, uh, America.

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

There is a huge difference. Milosevic was a rank amateur compared to B and B, death toll in the tens of thousands and only hundreds of thousands ethnically cleansed. They're clearly guilty of unambiguous war crimes, whether their countries would abide by the international laws that they're supposed to be the world's foremost upholders of and hand them over for trial is something else entirely.

[CFH]

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Holland, has the authority to try them, like it tried Slobodan Milosevic for ethnic cleansing. Every country in the world is a signatory to the ICC treaty and accepts its authority in these matters apart from the failed state Somalia and the rogue states North Korea and, uh, America.

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

There is a huge difference. Milosevic was a rank amateur compared to B and B, death toll in the tens of thousands and only hundreds of thousands ethnically cleansed. They're clearly guilty of unambiguous war crimes, whether their countries would abide by the international laws that they're supposed to be the world's foremost upholders of and hand them over for trial is something else entirely.

What is the definition of "war crime" that you are using? The deaths of innocent civilians happens in every war. Lies about the reasons behind the war happen in every war. Torture happens in every war. Executions happen in every war. And so on.

If you want to argue against the morality of the wars of the ruling class, then I can agree with you. But to say that the Iraq war is somehow worse or fundamentally different than previous conflicts is ridiculous.

And when has the U.S. ever presented itself as the "foremost upholders" of international law? They regularly ignore international agreements and anything else which would put constraints on them from the outside.

[Kirkland Laing]

There's a HUGE difference between trying Slobidan "Genocide" Milosevic and George "Cocaine" Bush and Tony "Pseudo-labor" Blair. I loathe Bush, and to a lesser extend Blair, and almost everything they stand for, but to think that they could be tried for war crimes, or that their respective nations would allow that to happen is absurd.

There is a huge difference. Milosevic was a rank amateur compared to B and B, death toll in the tens of thousands and only hundreds of thousands ethnically cleansed. They're clearly guilty of unambiguous war crimes, whether their countries would abide by the international laws that they're supposed to be the world's foremost upholders of and hand them over for trial is something else entirely.

What is the definition of "war crime" that you are using? The deaths of innocent civilians happens in every war. Lies about the reasons behind the war happen in every war. Torture happens in every war. Executions happen in every war. And so on.

If you want to argue against the morality of the wars of the ruling class, then I can agree with you. But to say that the Iraq war is somehow worse or fundamentally different than previous conflicts is ridiculous.

And when has the U.S. ever presented itself as the "foremost upholders" of international law? They regularly ignore international agreements and anything else which would put constraints on them from the outside.

Read the quote art thing I did. Planning to start a war under false pretences is a war crime, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, America's own prosecutors at Nuremburg. WW2 was America's finest hour, and after WW2 America felt so strongly about holding future criominals to account for their war crimes that

The French and the Russians had at first objected to the whole concept of crimes against the peace . . . But those Allies gave ground when [U.S. Chief Prosecutor Robert] Jackson made it clear that the criminalizing of, and the imposition of individual punishment for, aggressive wars, now and in the future, were so important to the U.S. that if the Charter failed to do so, the U.S. was prepared to abandon a joint trial.

Bernard D. Meltzer
The Nuremberg trials : a prosecutor's perspective
December 2002





The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

Crimes against peace: (i.) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii.) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

International Law Commission of the U.N.
Principles of the Nuremberg tribunal
1950





Certain binding legal principles, affirmed unanimously by the UN, emerged from the Nuremberg trials . . . It was made absolutely clear that law must apply equally to everyone. Putting the captive enemies on trial was seen by America's Chief Prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson, as "the greatest tribute that power has ever paid to reason." His successor General Telford Taylor, my chief and later law partner, was more succinct: "Law is not a one-way street."

Nuremberg Prosecutor Benjamin B. Ferencz
Remarks on the International Criminal Court
March 11, 2003

And the treaty the US and Britain were in violation of is the UN Charter, which both countries have signed up to, and which takes precedence over their respective domestic laws. Bush and Blair tried to get the UN to agree to sanction the war, failed, and went ahead anyway. After the war we were told by Bush that Saddam had refused to let the inspectors in, that previous UN resolutions against Iraq authorised the war, and a bunch of other stuff, all of which was a pack of lies. Just before the war Bush even admitted he didn't have the authority :

WASHINGTON — President Bush vowed yesterday to attack Iraq with the "full force and might" of the U.S. military if Saddam Hussein does not flee within 48 hours, setting the nation on an almost certain course to war.

Bush delivered the ultimatum hours after his administration earlier in the day admitted failure in its months-long effort to win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council to forcibly disarm the Iraqi leader. The United Nations ordered its inspectors and humanitarian personnel out of Iraq, and Bush urged foreign nationals to leave the country immediately....



Earlier in the day, British and U.S. diplomats, facing certain defeat on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have cleared the way for war. Though Bush on Sunday vowed another day of "working the phones," it quickly became clear that as many as 11 of 15 council members remained opposed and the effort was abandoned by 10 a.m.
The withdrawal of the resolution without a vote was a double climb-down for Bush. On Feb. 22, he had predicted victory at the United Nations, and on March 6 he said he wanted a vote regardless of the outcome.......






Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security," he said. "The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will."


http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/18/ln/ln11a.html




And the UN say the war is illegal :

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter. He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.



BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq war illegal, says Annan

And that's without going into all the torture stuff, another bunch of war crimes for which there are already dozens of cases being brought in European courts against B and B, something that will continue for years. Bush won't travel but Blair will spend the rest of his life having to check with any country he's flying to to make sure there isn't a warrant out for his arrest, like Henry Kissinger still has to.

[Kirkland Laing]

And the US does claim to be the world's arbiter of international law, human rights etc. Do you know any other country that issues a yearly report card on how other countries are doing regarding respect of democratic institutions, human rights etc. ?

[CFH]

Kirkland:

1) I have no desire to play cut and paste patticake with you so save that bullshit for Lyle.

2) Nothing you posted changes my fundamental points that a) Bush and Blair (and their subordinates in Iraq and Afghanistan) did nothing that literally almost every other military ruler (politician or otherwise) hasn't done in the past and will do in the future in times of war; and b) that the United States would NEVER allow any foreign or international court to imposed any punishment on George W. Bush (or any other President).

3) War is inherently immoral and it (unfortunately) is a mainstay of human society. Trying to impose some arbitrary rules which classify some people as "war criminals", except perhaps in extreme cases, is a futile exercise in semantics and political posturing.

Those are my points. As I have mentioned, I loathe Bush but to try and paint him with the same brush as a Hitler or Stalin is absurd.

As for the other points that came up during our little chat, I have no desire to engage in a redundant argument with you over them.