Should Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes?

[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.

[Nameless]

Kirkland:



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.

Don't you think that creating phony proofs to go suck somebody else oil, killing a few millions lives including 500 000 innocent children, waging a war that should have never happen because there was no threats is one of the extreme cases?

[CFH]

Kirkland:



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.

Don't you think that creating phony proofs to go suck somebody else oil, killing a few millions lives including 500 000 innocent children, waging a war that should have never happen because there was no threats is one of the extreme cases?

Unfortunately, I think it's pretty common in regards to war. That doesn't make it right, I probably cannot accurately express how opposed I am to this type of war (and almost all wars to be honest), but I don't think what has happened in Iraq is uncommon in any way regarding the ways wars are conducted.

[Nameless]

Kirkland:



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.

Don't you think that creating phony proofs to go suck somebody else oil, killing a few millions lives including 500 000 innocent children, waging a war that should have never happen because there was no threats is one of the extreme cases?

Unfortunately, I think it's pretty common in regards to war. That doesn't make it right, I probably cannot accurately express how opposed I am to this type of war (and almost all wars to be honest), but I don't think what has happened in Iraq is uncommon in any way regarding the ways wars are conducted.

It is not that common either and if you ask me, all those creating wrong reasons, leading to the demise of millions of peoples (or thousands) based on a lie they knew was a lie only for their oil and ideological ideas are guilty. I am not expressing this thought only to Bush and Blair but to all the sordid dictators in the world, present past and future and thosw who would do the same. The present debate was about Bush and Blair so I did reduce my opinion only for these 2 for the occasion.

[Gandalf]

Well, spoken Nameless.

To suggest that Bush and Blair "haven't done enough" to be deserving of war crimes charges is somewhat ridiculous in itself. The death of well over a million people is blood enough.

The wars were ill-concieved, founded upon fairy tale evidence and resulted in chaos and mass murder. The war was illegal under international protocol. We had no right to go ahead and impose our will unilaterally. The world was opposed to Iraq because most knew it was wrong. Bush knew that and simply didn't want to sit around waiting any longer. He knew that it was unlikely repurcussions would come back to bite him, what with being President of the USA. What was the world going to do? Call him a naughty boy? He could live with that just as long as his nations vested interests were served.

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

2.Every other pollitician and military ruler has started a preemptive aggressive war?

3. Not semantics or posturing at all. And definitely not arbitrary rules. The Geneva Conventions are not arbitraryrules, are they? The whole business of going to war is codified into law, so the whole issue depends on law, not semantics or posturing.

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

[El Kabong]

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

...actually you can be worse and still not be a war criminal.

Kirkland you can wish for Bush and Blair to be tried as war criminals in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first.

Do you people deny the slightest possibility that #1 Some of those "civilian casualties" were actually enemy combatants? or that #2 Perhaps the Allied Forces didn't kill those civilians but the enemy combatants did or that #3 MAYBE the enemy combatants hid themselves around civilians not only to try and blend in but to bait the Allies to attack in turn insighting hatred of the Allied forces by the very civilians they (the enemy) endanger? Are those not plausable reasons behind any if not ALL of the civilians casualties

And Kirkland don't you or anyone else fucking quote the Geneva Convention to anyone the terrorists don't wear uniforms, attack ANYONE civilians/reporters/medical personell, and they cut people's heads off when they have them held captive....but I suppose pouring water on someone who was part of 9/11 just makes us even.

[Nameless]

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

...actually you can be worse and still not be a war criminal.

Kirkland you can wish for Bush and Blair to be tried as war criminals in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first.

Do you people deny the slightest possibility that #1 Some of those "civilian casualties" were actually enemy combatants? or that #2 Perhaps the Allied Forces didn't kill those civilians but the enemy combatants did or that #3 MAYBE the enemy combatants hid themselves around civilians not only to try and blend in but to bait the Allies to attack in turn insighting hatred of the Allied forces by the very civilians they (the enemy) endanger? Are those not plausable reasons behind any if not ALL of the civilians casualties

And Kirkland don't you or anyone else fucking quote the Geneva Convention to anyone the terrorists don't wear uniforms, attack ANYONE civilians/reporters/medical personell, and they cut people's heads off when they have them held captive....but I suppose pouring water on someone who was part of 9/11 just makes us even.

You're mixing a lot of different things together Lyle:

1) we never said that terrorists do not have to be trialed like Blair and Bush (they should like any other butchers and mass murder responsibles)

2)most peoples tortured aren't terrorists, every Mujaidin aren't linked to Ben Laden and god knows there is a lot of the alike in Guantanamo and other secret camps like that.

3) it doesn't change what Bush and Blair did and why they should be "forgiven" for the millions they killed on a simple signature and a few phony proofs.

[Kirkland Laing]

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

...actually you can be worse and still not be a war criminal.

Kirkland you can wish for Bush and Blair to be tried as war criminals in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first.

Do you people deny the slightest possibility that #1 Some of those "civilian casualties" were actually enemy combatants? or that #2 Perhaps the Allied Forces didn't kill those civilians but the enemy combatants did or that #3 MAYBE the enemy combatants hid themselves around civilians not only to try and blend in but to bait the Allies to attack in turn insighting hatred of the Allied forces by the very civilians they (the enemy) endanger? Are those not plausable reasons behind any if not ALL of the civilians casualties

And Kirkland don't you or anyone else fucking quote the Geneva Convention to anyone the terrorists don't wear uniforms, attack ANYONE civilians/reporters/medical personell, and they cut people's heads off when they have them held captive....but I suppose pouring water on someone who was part of 9/11 just makes us even.

You can start more wars than Hitler and not be a war criminal?

Forget about civilian casualties. Let's just talk about planning an illegal war. That's an unambiguous war crime and it's clear that B and B did lots of planning before they started the war. So they're war criminals, no?

And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorist attack on America, don't change the subject to Saddam's nonexistent support of Al Quaeda. The reason I'm mentioning the Geneva Conventions is that America and Britain both signed up to them and B and B both clearly broke the laws enshrined in those conventions.

[Gandalf]

I'm busy as hell right now, so just can't get on and post like I want to. But it's good to see others keeping up the good fight!

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Nobody is saying Bush is as bad as Hitler, but you can be less bad than Hitler and still be a war criminal.

...actually you can be worse and still not be a war criminal.

Kirkland you can wish for Bush and Blair to be tried as war criminals in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first.

Do you people deny the slightest possibility that #1 Some of those "civilian casualties" were actually enemy combatants? or that #2 Perhaps the Allied Forces didn't kill those civilians but the enemy combatants did or that #3 MAYBE the enemy combatants hid themselves around civilians not only to try and blend in but to bait the Allies to attack in turn insighting hatred of the Allied forces by the very civilians they (the enemy) endanger? Are those not plausable reasons behind any if not ALL of the civilians casualties

And Kirkland don't you or anyone else fucking quote the Geneva Convention to anyone the terrorists don't wear uniforms, attack ANYONE civilians/reporters/medical personell, and they cut people's heads off when they have them held captive....but I suppose pouring water on someone who was part of 9/11 just makes us even.

You can start more wars than Hitler and not be a war criminal?

Forget about civilian casualties. Let's just talk about planning an illegal war. That's an unambiguous war crime and it's clear that B and B did lots of planning before they started the war. So they're war criminals, no?

And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorist attack on America, don't change the subject to Saddam's nonexistent support of Al Quaeda. The reason I'm mentioning the Geneva Conventions is that America and Britain both signed up to them and B and B both clearly broke the laws enshrined in those conventions.

[El Kabong]

You can start more wars than Hitler and not be a war criminal?

Forget about civilian casualties. Let's just talk about planning an illegal war. That's an unambiguous war crime and it's clear that B and B did lots of planning before they started the war. So they're war criminals, no?

And Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorist attack on America, don't change the subject to Saddam's nonexistent support of Al Quaeda. The reason I'm mentioning the Geneva Conventions is that America and Britain both signed up to them and B and B both clearly broke the laws enshrined in those conventions.

Vietnam and the Spanish-American War were planned and started "illegally" and neither JFK or William McKinley were called war criminals or were tried for war crimes.

As for the Iraq-Al Quaeda ties...listen to YOUR BOY Al Gore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bogBwAby3so
And since I know you don't like watching videos I'll give you a summary Gore admits #1 Terrorist were in Iraq AND Saddam supported them and #2 Iraq was trying to further their nuclear capabilities

Point to Lyle