Do You believe Bush is a War Criminal?

[Bob26003]

War of aggression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war not out of self-defense or sanctioned by Article 51 of the UN Charter.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[1]

Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and “shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security”.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community”, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the Rome Statute stipulates that the ICC may not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted.

[Killer Bee]

What were his reasons for the invasion? WMD's, and we've yet to find EVEN A TRACE! Links to Al-Queda, where? The only thing we've done over there is take out Hussein. Have we really made the world a more secure place?

Edited October 24, 2007 by Killer Bee

[Atheist God]

Attacking a nation that does not have the means to defend itself or that never directly declared war against you or threatened you makes you a war criminal. I voted yes.

[Mad Manfred]

Every douche-bag in charge during his reign should be held accountable, not just Bush.

I also think Blair and Howard should be charged as well.

[BrucePrime]

War is evil!

Unless it's conducted by a Democrat!

Vote Democrat in 2008!

[Unlimited]

bush is a solid war criminal...when history is written he will be remembered as such...

[BrucePrime]

But if you bomb the hell out of the Serbs (without UN permission) you're a hero!

War is Evil!

Unless it's conducted by a Democrat!

Vote Democrat in 2008! War Will Cool Again!

[Unlimited]

But if you bomb the hell out of the Serbs (without UN permission) you're a hero!

Vote Democrat in 2008!

their was a genocide going in in serbia ..how do you compare that to shock and awe?...

[stevewinn]

I voted No, for the simple reason i dont believe war crimes have been committed, if you want to try Bush has a war Criminal you will need to try the following countries aswell, The United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Norway, Spain, New Zealand, South Korea. (all have taken part in Iraq)

[Unlimited]

I voted No, for the simple reason i dont believe war crimes have been committed, if you want to try Bush has a war Criminal you will need to try the following countries aswell, The United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Norway, Spain, New Zealand, South Korea. (all have taken part in Iraq)

those countries sent troops and aid...bush instigated the whole thing on his own...have you ever heard the mushroom cloud speeches?...frightning stuff..

[Lt_Ripley]

without a doubt he is. as does most of the world think. Bush himself admitted he did.

George W. Bush's speech on September 6 amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.

These are all serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and all violations of Common Article 3 punishable by fines, imprisonment or, if death results to the victim, the death penalty.

<a href="http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1185.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publis...icle_1185.shtml</a>

<a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_sherwood_071013_many_americans_don_t.htm" target="_blank">http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_sh...icans_don_t.htm</a>

War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat Of Prosecution

The Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, however, that the administration's policy of not honoring the Geneva Conventions was illegal, and that prisoners in the fight against al-Qaeda are entitled to such protections.

( article on bush squirming out of following the Geneva Convention and prosecution thereof)

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276_pf.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0801276_pf.html</a>

Here's a point - the next president or there after can resore the law holding Bush accountable. And internationally Lawyers are pushing to prosecute in the International Courts for war crimes - Germany and in Spain.

It also answers why Bush bought 90 thousand + acres in Paraguay ! a place to run too just in case.

and .............

The Threat of War Crimes Prosecutions

The essential facts of Gonzales's role in this respect were well known at that time of his confirmation hearings.

In January 2002, amidst a furiously raging dispute within the Administration as to how to deal with prisoners and suspected terrorists captured in Afghanistan, Gonzales submitted, over his own name, a secret memorandum actually drafted by Addington, warning the President that he and others were in the process of committing war crimes, as strictly defined under the Geneva Conventions, and anti-torture treaties and laws. The Gonzales/Addington memo then recommended a series of steps that should be taken which, it said, "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act."

Within weeks of the submission of this memo, President Bush and the Administration did adopt the recommendations contained therein, to reject the application of the Geneva Conventions—with the disastrous consequences now well-known to the nation and to the world.

Also stressed in the LaRouche testimony, and in EIR's coverage at the time, was the issue of the Justice Department's utter failure to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act; its purging of the Department's Civil Rights Division and its Voting Rights Section of experienced, competent lawyers; and replacing them with right-wing ideologues who were promoting GOP-sponsored voter-suppression efforts. This has, of course, now emerged as a key underlying issue in the 2006 purge of U.S. Attorneys under Gonzales's tenure as Attorney General, especially in New Mexico and Washington State.

It is essential to emphasize that the U.S. Senate was fully aware of all of this, when it confirmed Gonzales as Attorney General by a 60-to-36 vote on Feb. 3, 2005. Had the Democrats mobilized to do so, and shown real leadership, the nomination could have been blocked. And those Republicans who voted unanimously for Gonzales's confirmation, over the opposition of a group of distinguished retired military officers, now have no one to blame but themselves for the dilemma in which they find themselves.

<a href="http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3417gonzo_n_cheney.html" target="_blank">http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3417...o_n_cheney.html</a>

so yes Virginia not only is there a Santa Claus but Bushco is guilty of war crimes. The Iraq war because it was preemptive itself is against international law as well as our own law via the constitution.

Edited October 24, 2007 by Lt_Ripley

[Tiggs]

In the Summer 1996 session of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Sub-Commission passed a resolution finding the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) weapons "incompatible" with existing humanitarian law.

In 2001, the Sub-Commission appointed Justice Yeung Sik Yuen to investigate further. In his paper (U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/38), he provides a legal analysis of why Depleted Uranium weapons are illegal. A follow-up paper in 2003 (U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/35) establishes the same legal conclusion.

In regards to this thread, it should be noted that International law also states that the use of illegal weapons may also subject the user State and its military comanders to trials for violations of the Geneva Convention.

In short, the use of Depleted Uranium is a war crime.

So far, over two thousand tons of Depleted Uranium have been used in the second Gulf War.

Source.

Edited October 24, 2007 by Tiggs
Added Source

[Unlimited]

In short, the use of Depleted Uranium is a war crime.

Source.

depleted uranium kills for years...thanks for shedding light on that tiggs..that alone is a war crime...

[Cradle of Fish]

Even if Bush is guilty of a war crime, nobody has the spine to prosecute him.

I think all that's going to happen is he's going to grow old, retiring with the lowest approval rating ever, and then when he dies, if there is a hell, he and all the neo-cons will be going there.

[Lt_Ripley]

Even if Bush is guilty of a war crime, nobody has the spine to prosecute him.

I think all that's going to happen is he's going to grow old, retiring with the lowest approval rating ever, and then when he dies, if there is a hell, he and all the neo-cons will be going there.

I would hope the international community finds the spine to do it - I know it's been brought up. We in the US would expect the same if it were some other countries leader. funny how we can't follow the same law.

I'd rather placate the middle east by prosecuting bushco than fanning flames higher than he has by ignoring his guilt.

[Unlimited]

, and then when he dies, if there is a hell, he and all the neo-cons will be going there.

If their is a hell he's gonna be in charge probably....under the tombs at yale I think it was promised...hopefully he's arrested first.

[Princess Serenity]

War of aggression

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression</a>

Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war not out of self-defense or sanctioned by Article 51 of the UN Charter.

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[1]

Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and “shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community,” and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the Rome Statute stipulates that the ICC may not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted.

No, Bob. I don't.

I don't know anything about the rules of war. But I'm sure he didn't do anything really wrong.

I voted "no" for this poll.

Edited October 24, 2007 by MoonPrincess

[BrucePrime]

their was a genocide going in in serbia ..how do you compare that to shock and awe?...

So? Under what Bob posted it is still a war-crime to attack Serbia. The UN never approved it. Genocide and ethnic cleanings took place in Iraq too. They presented no threat to us, but yet we maintained a bombing campaign of civilian, government, and military installations for 10 weeks. Certainly tons of depleted uranium were dumped on Kosovo and Serbia...but hey, that's only a war crime if the US does it in Iraq, right?

But the Democrats were in charge of that bombing, so it's okay! It's was "humanitarian bombing," right? Oh, I know, all of you were against that war too; funny you couldn't muster the strength to get off your behinds and protest that war too. Besides, protesting war just wasn't cool back then. And you certainly couldn't protest when protesting might help your political enemies!

Edited October 24, 2007 by BrucePrime

[Unlimited]

genocide and ethnic cleansing continue in iraq....a war conducted from 2000 feet with selected targets or the upheavel of an entire region...you just dont get it..every morning this policy creates more terrorists...

[Lt_Ripley]

No, Bob. I don't.

I don't know anything about the rules of war. But I'm sure he didn't do anything really wrong.

I voted "no" for this poll.

if you don't know anything about the rules of war - or rather the laws of war held by our country and international treaty which then becomes national law via our constitution how can you be sure ?

facts are that yes he broke both national law and international law concerning war , prisoners and transport and secret keeping thereof. not taking into account how many others he broke like wire tapping that began pre 911 or the use of DU.

It doesn't matter if you think it was right. it's the law. and no one is above the law. or no one should be.

Edited October 24, 2007 by Lt_Ripley

[BrucePrime]

genocide and ethnic cleansing continue in iraq....a war conducted from 2000 feet with selected targets or the upheavel of an entire region...you just dont get it..every morning this policy creates more terrorists...

Yet where are all the Serbian terrorists? Doesn't bombing them for 10 weeks create terrorists too?

No, you don't get it. If these are war-crimes in Iraq, then they are war crimes in Serbia. The left doesn't want to face that, because their boy was in power then. This is disingenious and hypocritcal.

Say No To War...Unless Democrats Are In Power!

[BrucePrime]

if you don't know anything about the rules of war - or rather the laws of war held by our country and international treaty which then becomes national law via our constitution how can you be sure ?

facts are that yes he broke both national law and international law concerning war , prisoners and transport and secret keeping thereof. not taking into account how many others he broke like wire tapping that began pre 911 or the use of DU.

It doesn't matter if you think it was right. it's the law. and no one is above the law. or no one should be.

Then as soon as you drag Clinton, Gore and Albright before the ICC, we'll agree to Bush. Oh, but you won't do that, because Clinton is a hero and savior, if only because he has a (D) beside his name.

[Unlimited]

Yet where are all the Serbian terrorists? Doesn't bombing them for 10 weeks create terrorists too?

No, you don't get it. If these are war-crimes in Iraq, then they are war crimes in Serbia. The left doesn't want to face that, because their boy was in power then. This is disingenious and hypocritcal.

Say No To War...Unless Democrats Are In Power!

the whole US war establishment needs to be looked at....eisenhower warned us about the industrial military complex..too bad we didnt heed the warning..

[Lt_Ripley]

So? Under what Bob posted it is still a war-crime to attack Serbia. The UN never approved it. Genocide and ethnic cleanings took place in Iraq too. They presented no threat to us, but yet we maintained a bombing campaign of civilian, government, and military installations for 10 weeks. Certainly tons of depleted uranium were dumped on Kosovo and Serbia...but hey, that's only a war crime if the US does it in Iraq, right?

But the Democrats were in charge of that bombing, so it's okay! It's was "humanitarian bombing," right? Oh, I know, all of you were against that war too; funny you couldn't muster the strength to get off your behinds and protest that war too. Besides, protesting war just wasn't cool back then. And you certainly couldn't protest when protesting might help your political enemies!

Serbia Accuses NATO of War Crimes

by Aleksandar Vasovic

BELGRADE, Yugoslavia –– A Belgrade court accused President Clinton and other leaders of NATO nations of war crimes Monday in a trial intended to resurrect memories of the alliance's bombing campaign ahead of elections in Yugoslavia.

Judge Veroljub Raketic faced a row of 14 empty chairs with plates bearing the names of the accused in a courtroom packed with 300 reporters and spectators. Diplomats from African countries, North Korea and Iran also attended.

Spectators sit behind empty chairs reserved for President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Monday September 18 2000 at the start of the trial in Belgrade. A Belgrade district court put Clinton, Albright and other leaders of key NATO states on trial in absentia for war crimes in connection with the alliance's bombing campaign last year. A row of 14 empty chairs with signs bearing names of the accused faced presiding judge Veroljub Raketic in a packed courtroom. Besides Clinton and Albright, those indicted include Defense Secretary William Cohen, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac, as well as NATO's former Secretary General Javier Solana and retired commander Gen.Wesley Clark. (AP Photo / Srdjan Ilic)

But it was a trial without defendants – and without witnesses.

Belgrade district attorney Andrija Milutinovic opened the session by reading the names of 240 Yugoslav army soldiers, 147 Serbian policemen and 503 civilians killed in NATO airstrikes.

"We have more than enough evidence for the case," he said.

Yugoslavia suffered heavily in the bombing, launched last year to halt President Slobodan Milosevic's crackdown on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.

The trial should serve to fan such feelings ahead of Yugoslavia's elections Sunday – a move that Milosevic supporters apparently hope will translate into votes for the incumbent president.

"There is no expiration time for these crimes" Milutinovic said, meaning that if the court ordered prison terms against the accused, they could be apprehended if they come to Yugoslavia.

It is unlikely, however, the trial could have any real impact on the leaders involved. No monetary damages are being sought.

A group of 15 court-appointed attorneys represented the defense.

Besides Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, those indicted include U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac, as well as NATO's former Secretary-General Javier Solana and retired commander Gen. Wesley Clark.

Last month, Milutinovic accused senior NATO officials and Western leaders of "inciting an aggressive war and committing war crimes against a civilian population." The 120-page indictment included charges of use of illegal means of warfare, attempted murder and "violation of the territorial integrity" of Yugoslavia.

"The judge panel has decided to hold the trial in absentia," Raketic said in court Monday.

Raketic said no witnesses would be called to testify since the list of plaintiffs included "all citizens of Yugoslavia and no courtroom was big enough to hold all witnesses."

Yugoslav officials allege that NATO leaders violated international law when ordering the bombing of civilians – an act that resulted in numerous deaths, grievous bodily harm and destruction of homes and property.

But discord appeared among defense attorneys Monday.

"I shall demand the indictments be altered so as to separate each case – not all were equally guilty," said Miljko Zivojinovic, who is representing Solana. "Solana was only part of NATO's command chain."

----------------------- So yes Clinton is guilty of war crimes. And cons were screaming about it then ( check out Pat Buchanan who tried to run on the republican ticket) lets send both Bush and Clinton up the river.

I have no qualms about doing that. we should.

<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/091800-04.htm" target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/091800-04.htm</a>

Edited October 24, 2007 by Lt_Ripley

[Unlimited]

This news of clinton being charged with war crimes should cheer bruce up...now lets get moving on bush's war crimes and stop him before he starts ww3...I would recommend calling dennis kucinichs office...