Including (potentialy) the president himself.
2006-08-10 16:56:35 · 10 answers · asked by Gent 5 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
NO!!!!! the bastard bush is a war criminal and he knows it and he doesn't want to pay for what he's done. he never has and he never will, i'm sure.
bush has dropped bombs on civilian neighborhoods, bush went to war without a u.n. resolution, bush AUTHORIZED TORTURE of innocent people, including torture to death. Bush appt. as attorney general a man who thinks the geneva convention is quaint.
just keep pretending that because other people are bad it's okay for our govt to be run by gangsters. just keep judging america's behavior by the lowest standards. just keep pretending that dropping bombs on neighborhoods - of people you are trying to 'liberate' and who've never ever ever done anything to you - is oh so much better than what the people fighting back against our aggression are doing.
2006-08-10 17:16:41 · answer #1 · answered by cassandra 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Judging by the way you have loaded your question, you aren't going to like my answer very much, but what the hell. It's still worth two points.
If there is a serious question here it is one that someone with a legal background can answer better than I can.
I don't know if we have had very many "war crimes," but as far as I can see the ones that have surfaced are being prosecuted.
President Bush has not committed any war crimes that I am aware of.
But what about the other side?
I'm speaking of radical Islamofascists who behead civilians, who hijack airliners and fly them into buildings full of people and who have killed innocent men, women and children.
There have been war crimes committed by American military personnel, but they have been the exception and they are being dealt with by due legal processes that have been established for a long time.
I deplore them as much as anyone else does, since I devoted 41 years of my life to military service either as a reservist or full-time military member, and I consider war crimes to be a black mark on a profession I respect and am proud to have been part of.
But our war crimes are not part of our policy, and our enemies have chosen to adopt "war crimes" as part of their strategy.
I would say any time one of these legitimate enemies is caught our guys can do anything they want to to them and I don't mind and I'd rather not hear about it. And I'd rather they be gone someplace other than this life.
Hell, I'd even let them keep their 72 virgins, if they can find that many.
2006-08-11 00:15:06 · answer #2 · answered by Warren D 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
'You have a poor understanding of events and current affairs (including chronology), I suggest you do some research.'
I was quoting Benjamin Netanyahu, Israels former prime minister, and would be next prime minister. So to say I have a poor understanding would be a bit laughable, he more than you, understand the conflict a bit better. I mean lets face it, you have an understanding based on what propaganda you chose to believe, he is on the front line of the wests defence against these evil people.
Perhaps you disagree with me, but at least try and get your facts right in the future, eh, mate?
2006-08-11 01:03:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the soldiers are found guilty of war crimes by another country, then yes -- depending on the circumstances, evidence, and so on.
If the soldiers are found guily of war crimes by a military court in the US, then no.
Also, if another country finds Bush guilty of war crimes, there is no way on Earth for them to enforce it -- unless the American people are in total agreement.
Example: China proclaims that Bush is guilty of war crimes and demands that he be turned over.
Only way the American people would turn him over, is if he approved a nuclear strike for no reason -- and it resulted in hundreds of thousands + dead.
2006-08-11 00:07:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is like a little kid who can't read and he's playing a game he never played before......he's making this stuff up as he goes along. Who the h*ll knows what he's going to do next.
2006-08-11 00:03:13 · answer #5 · answered by daljack -a girl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only for himself and Ronald drumsfield
2006-08-11 03:40:10 · answer #6 · answered by acid tongue 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From a Veteran. He should NOT be allowed. He is not God and is not above the law.
2006-08-11 00:03:10 · answer #7 · answered by sir_john_65 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No!... He shouldn't be allowed to do a lot of things... but Hey! People vote for him.....
2006-08-11 00:03:58 · answer #8 · answered by shary_kd 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. But hypocrisy rules our fair land....so it will probably happen.
2006-08-11 00:16:57 · answer #9 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes! if they made a mistake.
2006-08-11 00:02:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋