Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

You say that like its a bad thing?

Except if you can convince me about the opposite. I give you a chance because I am seriously that incredible.

No you're not.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Bahahahahahahahahaha

Memphis is sulking because he's not involved in my depraved love life.

I'm loving your transformation into Forum Slut

perhaps but I'm still fussy.

[Memphis]

How did the self taster slip through the net then?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

How did the self taster slip through the net then?

that was just a viewing. I passed on that one.

[Memphis]

Ah I see. I thought he'd infiltrated the Missy dungeon then turned on himself.

Anyway about these war crimes

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Ah I see. I thought he'd infiltrated the Missy dungeon then turned on himself.

Anyway about these war crimes

no, no, he didn't get near any dungeon! He, erm, popped up on a cam.
Pay attention will you.

[ono]

It would be cool if the country could participate in an x factor like phone vote. Like a military based reality tv show with veteran war criminals trying one last time for that shot at stardom. Like i'm a war criminal get me out of here, except with camoflauge and guns. And Joe Bugner.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Bugner would be out. No one likes him do they?

[Nameless]

You say that like its a bad thing?

Except if you can convince me about the opposite. I give you a chance because I am seriously that incredible.

No you're not.

I had a TM's moment. Sorry for that.

[ono]

Bugner would be out. No one likes him do they?

No. Quite sad really. I'd be nagging the fuck out of him. He shared a ring with Ali.

It's a shame that none of the other contestants seem to like him much. Can't imagine the easily influenced general public liking him either.

Still if it came down to a vote off between him and Bin Laden, i reckon Joe would survive.

[CFH]

[quote=Howlin Mad Missy;816814]

Aside from the Second World War, which is debatable, name some wars with justifiable or truthful pretexts. There are almost none and it means nothing in terms of defining someone as a war criminal, unless you want to define almost everyone who makes war in that fashion.

Like I said, I'm fundamentally opposed to the likes of Bush and Blair and everything they represent, but they've done nothing that hundreds of others before them have done. The only reason people are whining about it is because it has turned into a protracted struggle. My sympathies lie with those Iraqi's who want nothing but peace and who are dying at alarming rates, if I was one of them I would gladly take up arms against imperialistic aggression, but saying the leaders who started the war should be tried as war criminals, thereby implying they have done something more egregious than those who came before them is ridiculous. They are no more or less guilty that any who came before them.

NO! People round the world were saying it was wrong / unjust / we know we're being lied to before the war. And some people have never stopped saying it.

That's a bit like arguing for slavery. Nothing wrong with it, we did it before. The difference now is in the 24/7 media culture we have now. We have much greater access to information and people can research for themselves. Mass media still has a large role in play in public (dis)information but there is a more gloves off attitude out there.

Of course it's wrong, almost all wars are. All wars are based on lies and manipulation. I really don't see how slavery applies in that warfare has been a constant feature in human interaction forever, slavery was something which individual states had the means to eradicate.

I am against the war and I was against it in 2003 but to say that Bush and Blair should be tried as war criminals is just asinine. There is no rational way that could happen and it never will.

[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. ?