Did Bush Commit War Crimes?

Question

Under federal criminal law, anyone who "commits a war crime … shall be fined … or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death." And a war crime is defined as "any conduct … which constitutes a violation of Common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva." In other words, with the Hamdan decision, U.S. officials found to be responsible for subjecting war on terror detainees to torture, cruel treatment or other "outrages upon personal dignity" could face prison or even the death penalty.

Uhhh, read the news, the Supreme Court just ruled they do, ding dong.

Answer 1

this man portrays himself as a dictator, like his word is everything, how can we call those who kidnap in war kidnappers, when bush calls the people we are holding, detainees, is he not the same?

they hold people to prisoners, and we hold people prisoners, but we call what they do something else it makes americans feel like they are different then the otherside fighting for their beliefs..

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

for sure no longer. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 -- or the dozen different circumstances American embassies, barracks and homes got here lower than jihadist onslaught on condition that Jimmy Carter presided over "regime replace" in Iran in 1979. both international places -- and others -- gave succor to terrorists who had attacked the U.S. many times, and would receive advantages this back. all wars are wars of decision. What Obama somewhat desires to do is: Invent a time gadget, flow back to the 2008 presidential marketing campaign and under no circumstances say, persistently and once extra, that Afghanistan became a "conflict of necessity" even as the conflict in Iraq became a "conflict of decision."

Answer 4

according to the Geneva Conventions and many other international treaties, yes. But since we are the major super power of the world, and to attack bush & co. would bring the wrath of the evangelical movement, nothing will happen, at least until after 11-2006.

Answer 5

Illegal combatants (which is what they are) are outside the parameters of what you are referring to. We legally have the right to SHOOT them upon capture, but we do not. We are affording them at least some kind of humane treatment because we are civilized. I feel ones who are caught in the act of trying to kill civilians or our soldiers should be shot. Don't interpret these laws and conventions to push your own views. Tell it as it is. They have no rights, they are illegal combatants and are entitled to squat. Because Bush had them taken to Guantanamo, they now fall under U.S. jurisdiction, hence the Supreme Court ruling, which he will abide by. Had the been shot in country, on the battlefield, we would be totally justified under international law.

Answer 6

Uhhh, the terrorists did not sign the international conventions signed at Geneva, so they do not apply here!

Answer 7

Most definitely, he WILL will not get impeached as sad as that may sound, BUT!!!!!! if I was you I would feel bad for him, the death of the women and kids he kill in Iraq will return to him in time, YOU MAY RUN AND RUN AND RUN BUT HOW FAR CAN YOU RUN FROM YOURSELF? you can not out run the long are of history, YOU WILL PAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

Answer 8

The government is a show they don't care about anyone but themselves. We the people stand by and let them.......

Answer 9

yes, the prince of lies should held accountable for the treament of detainees.

Answer 10

he has committed hundreds of crimes and should have been impeached in 2002.