Does a State of War Give Bush a Right to Commit War Crimes?

Question

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority." Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

despotism... is where we are hearded unless we reel Bush in.

aaronmantz - How about we continue the war and then they will come and attack us again because we attacked them to steal control of thier oil?

Answer 1

The Supreme Court just ruled that Bush was in violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. That in itself makes him a war criminal.
The Congress did not give Bush authorization to go to war. They gave him authorization to use force if Saddam didn't comply with UN Resolution 1440. Saddam was in the process of complying when Bush decided to invade Iraq.

Answer 2

I'm sure you are a liberal. Nevertheless, as a staunch conservative, I partially agree with you. However, for starters, there is no state of war. The president never asked Congress for a declaration of War, and Congress has not made such a declaration on their own. This is the constitutional method. However, our government no longer feels bound by that abandoned document. They operate strictly by their own rules and whims. I believe a war was fought over that back in the 1860s. As for the war crimes, I would love to hear your examples. Sticking panties on prisoners heads? Let's get real here. Our boys are doing their duty out there, and they aren't getting much appreciation back here. They are fighting a war to liberate many. Now, I understand that the president has followed in the footsteps of his big-government predecessors, but in all fairness, Bush has yet to actually commit a war crime - technically, or practically.

Answer 3

I believe war crimes are legal when we're actually in a war. If I'm not mistaken, I thought Bush said the war was over...? If so, the continuing crimes against other nations are illegal and immoral. We've only got a couple more years with Bush...let's just hope the world lasts long enough for a new President. And that that person has the chance to clean up the mess Bush will leave him/her with.

Answer 4

He'd like to think that since he's crowned himself "War President" he can do whatever he wants...that seems to include breaking the Geneva Conventions as well as American law (spying). He is wrong. He is bound by law just as the rest of us are. The only reason he's gotten away with it is because his party controls all branches of government and significant media outlets.
He's a lame duck president but he still plays the Republican public relations game. Why? Because if his party loses its majority in the House and Senate there will be hearings and investigations that will make Clintons Whitewater and Lewinsky scandals seem like The Mickey Mouse Club.

Answer 5

Techincally a state of war does not give Bush a right to commit war crimes - they are war *crimes*, there is no condition that changes that fact.

Unfortunately, being that there is no world government that polices countries, Bush and his administration can pretty much get away with what he wants as far as war crimes - its just a matter of controlling the media, subtly of course, to make sure the public doesn't care. Hiding the crimes themselves and foreign countries' prosecution of them works as well.

Also, I think the last techical 'war' we were in was Korea. Everything else was justified differently on paper, as a policing action, or want not. Actual war is when congress agrees it is.

Answer 6

To the gentleman asking for examples of war crimes, how about Bush's stand on torture? I've never seen a president fight a piece of legislation as hard as Bush fought McCain's anti-torture bill. Even when it passed, Bush said he'll enforce it as he sees fit, which is political double-talk meaning he thinks he can ignore it because he's the president. Torture also violates the Geneva Convention, but Bush thinks he's above both national and international laws.

Answer 7

What war crimes has President Bush committed?

I'm surprised that you gobble up all the leftist liberal bull crap in the media from Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, Biden , Kerry, Pelosi, Feingold and that sorry excuse for a ex-marine General.

You are obviously somewhat intelligent. Quit drinking the kool-aid!

Answer 8

Take a breath. You are really full of yourself huh? Well comrade you should run for president and return the country to the people. Good luck! By the way the Democrats overwhelmingly voted to give Bush authority to declare war. That is their "inconvenient truth".

Answer 9

Your question seems to be based on the assumption that war crimes have been committed or will be committed in the near future, so let me ask you a few questions.

1) What is you definition of a war crime?
2) What war crimes do you allege have been committed? and/or Which ones do you think will be committed?
3) What concrete prof do you have to back up your claims?

Answer 10

nicely do no longer we sound like a typical Republican fascist, i'm guessing which you idolize Ann Coulter do no longer you nicely to your tips so some distance as i'm in contact the so referred to as enemy combatants are prisoners of warfare, with that being reported, in accordance to spot 18, section a million, financial ruin 118 of us of a code, warfare crimes are defined as any grave breach of the Geneva convention of August of 1949. in financial ruin 9 Article 50 of the Geneva convention describes a grave breach as, "Grave breaches to which the previous Article relates would be those regarding any of right here acts, if dedicated against persons or property secure via the convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman medical care, alongside with organic and organic experiments, willfully inflicting large suffering or severe harm to physique or wellbeing, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, no longer justified via militia necessity and accomplished unlawfully and wantonly." Geeee all sounds alot like the failings that have been taking place at getmo. and abu.. And no person will ever convince me that GW did no longer a minimum of understand approximately those issues, for this reason hes a warfare criminal. and that i wont even circulate into the crimes hes dedicated in the stealing the elections 2 circumstances and mendacity to the rustic and the worldwide approximately Iraq.