Do you think the President should be tried for war crimes?

Question

If so, why? Are you just saying such nonsense because you heard a bunch of your liberal buddies say it?

I hear Bush called a war criminal. What's odd is, the international community and the UN, who were the people who originally came up with the idea of rules for civilized warfare, all of whom really dislike the United States, none of them accuse Bush of war crimes, because he has committed no war crimes.

I also hear people say Bush decided all on his own to wage this "illegal" war. Really? Then why did Congress vote on it? Why did they accept the same intelligence that the President recieved and come to the same conclusion? Why did Saddam invade sovereign nations, conceal weapons programs, and violate UN sanctions, as well as butcher hundreds of thousands of his own people, and shoot down US surveillance planes which were allowed to be there to keep an eye on that psychopath? Answer: Because Saddam was a war criminal. And Bush has followed all of the rules of civilized war.

Why do you not condemn Iran for violating UN deadlines? Why do you not condemn them for supplying arms to terrorists?

(A terrorist is someone who brutally murders innocent civilians without warning and without hitting a legitimate military target, for the purpose of inflicting fear and destruction on innocent people. See: 9/11)

Why do you not condemn Syria, Lebanon, Hezbullah, the Taliban government, all of whom target civilian populations? Why the one-sided attacks against America and Israel? You hold yourself to a double standard. Neither of those countries attacks non-military targets intentionally, and when they have to bomb embedded terrorists who surround themselves with women and children, they order an evacuation, offer humanitarian aid, drop leaflets, provide shelter, clothing, food, you name it. Not one innocent person has to die.

The arabs, on the other hand, explode bombs for the purpose of killing women and children in crowded city streets, without even attempting to hit a legitimate target. Simply to exterminate jews.

Mac 113 is an example of what I mean. No logic, reason, or explanation. Simply one-sided condemnation of people for crimes they did not commit.

Donaldo- Bust him for what? He has broken no laws. He has the support of Congress (a simple vote could stop this war), the UN (they could order coalition forces to stand down or face sanctions), and the American people (if you really wanted to, you would call your congressmen en masse and tell them to impeach him).

Therefore, there is only one conclusion:

All you freaks who condemn Bush for no reason whatsoever have only yourselves to blame for losing elections and failing to stop Bush from doing what he said he was going to do, protect the US from foreign attacks.

You don't like it, that's fine. But that does not in and of itself make him a war criminal. You have failed to prove that he is (because he is not) and you have no one but your pothead friends who agree with you. Smoke another one.

Hey JT-

The United States has followed the rules of war regarding torture. If you think playing loud music and having dogs bark at you, 3 meals a day with 4000 calories, exercise equipment, private cells, and access to lawyers is torture, then I cordially invite you to visit an al-qaeda camp some time. I guarantee you, these people violate the Geneva convention, which means, according to the convention itself, they are not entitled to the benefits, which WE STILL GIVE THEM.

So far, not ONE of you has proved your case that he has broken any law, international or otherwise. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to shut your big ignorant pie holes!

Cantcu, I'm familiar with your mindless rants. You failed to back up 90% of what you said. No sources, no proof, no specifics, nothing. You say the supreme court ruled on something. Yeah, that's what the Supreme Court does. But the president works within the law as laid out by the legislature, who gave the president the power to persue those programs at their discretion and with their oversight. It was only the work of partisan lawyers who attempted to make it an issue. Since the supreme court only rules on laws which are created for the people and by the people (i.e. Congress), President Bush was well within the law to execute the office of the presidency and wage this LEGAL war within the confines of the powers granted to him by the people, the constitution, and the legislature.

I'm sorry to spoil your fun, but the powers are equally divided, and like it or not, the supreme court is not ruler almighty. And even if they were, Bush was within the law before the decision.

As for the rest of what you said, harping on and on about the intelligence failure, which even you have to admit was not Bush's fault, has nothing to do with breaking the law or violating international law.

You can rant on and on all day, and not listen to one godda'mn word anyone else has to say, such as for example; it's irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. I've heard all of those arguments before, and none of them incriminates the President. I've never argued that 9/11 was directly linked with Saddam, so what is it exactly that you are trying to do by bringing it up? Answer: distraction.

You know he hasn't violated international law, or the geneva convention, which doesn't apply to terrorists. You know all of his programs had congressional approval and oversight. You know that the US has abided by the decisions of the UN, even when Saddam did not. You have no argument, only seething hatred for someone because, boo hoo, you lost an election. Try it on someone else.

IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD

Then by all means email me. I'm not a hard man to find. But this space is getting cluttered.

I doubt you can back up one claim you make that pertains to this discussion.

LOL @ thinkprogress.org! That's where you get your misinformation??? Might as well just phone up Michael Moore and ask for his opinion. He's such a nice guy.

"Americans are the dumbest people on the planet" -Michael Moore.

Answer 1

Thanks for taking them on. You have said what I wish I could say to so many liberals especially my grandson's liberal teachers. It took all of a Saturday to convince him that Bush was not a liar and that he didn't hate Bush. Now he listens to Rush. I am such a good Grandma.

Answer 2

I want to know how we can allow Chavez and the president of Iran to come here to woo the less intelligent of our citizens?!

They are behaving like this is a popularity race! Doesn't anyone have a clue that these men are working towards our destruction! They want to topple our economy and kill as many of us as possible. Hell Chavez is even pro-Nazi! Yeah if Bush is a war criminal the president of Iran is Santa Claus,

Answer 3

Bush has committed war crimes! He attacked a sovereign nation pre-emptively, against National Law!

He violates the US Constitution and many treaties we have, to include Geneva Conventions, which the US Supreme Court already ruled that Bush was violating, and is still violating, even though he FINALLY ADMITTED TO HAVE SECRET PRISON CAMPS outside the US which practice torture done by the CIA, who he conveniently left out of the new anti torture law!

You talk about things that were resolved 15 years ago by his father, who did have UN approval as a state had been attacked by Iraq! That was settled!

What weapons programs? Before Bush we were arranging for him to have them and funding them! We GAVE HIM the gas who he used on Iran, which is exactly what we wanted him toy do! We were selling him dual use items, and Bush was approving them by the hundreds.

Saddam had no WMD's and he was no threat to us. Iran maybe!

We starved to death 1/2 million children under the age of 5 with our blockades of Iraq! What are we?

I could go on forever but you want to live in the early 1990's, which it was not when we attacked him!

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or with terrorist! AND BUSH KNEW IT!!

The United States now finds itself isolated in its policy toward Iraq. Even Great Britain has recently urged Washington to ease sanctions. There is growing support in the Security Council for suspending the general trade sanctions while maintaining a strict embargo on weapons and military technology.

There are two compelling arguments that should motivate U.S. support for this approach.

First, by lifting the civilian trade sanctions, the United Nations could concentrate on the arms embargo that has been instrumental in degrading Iraq's war-making capacity. Prior to their ejection from Iraq in December 1998, U.N. weapons inspectors were successful in locating and dismantling most of Iraq's nuclear, ballistic missile and chemical-weapons capabilities.

The U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, UNSCOM, certified in 1997 that ``there are no indications that any weapon-usable nuclear materials remain in Iraq'' and ``no evidence in Iraq of prohibited materials, equipment or activities.'' The arms embargo part of U.N. sanctions has blocked imports of military equipment. As a result, the Iraqi armed forces suffer from ``decaying, obsolete or obsolescent major weapons,'' according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

These gains could be preserved through a policy that focuses on blocking military-related shipments while permitting the controlled recovery of Iraq's civilian economy. But these inspections can't be carried out as long as economic sanctions remain in place, since Saddam Hussein has no incentive to cooperate.

Second, a policy that leads to the death of hundreds of thousands of children is morally unacceptable. The human costs of the general trade sanctions have far exceeded any political gains. From Patrick Buchanan to Rosie O'Donnell, Americans have expressed outrage about the Iraq sanctions.

Lifting civilian sanctions while maintaining a vigorous arms embargo is a humanitarian imperative, but it also makes sense politically and diplomatically. Such a policy would recognize the progress that the United Nations achieved in Iraq, and it could be offered as an incentive to encourage less hostile relations between Iraq and the rest of the world.

The stakes are huge, not only for the people of Iraq, but for the U.S. leadership position within the United Nations. Sanctions against Iraq have eroded international support for the United Nations and the United States. If we act now to lift civilian trade sanctions while maintaining an arms embargo, it would relieve the United Nations of responsibility for the humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

It also would bolster the legitimate commitment of the United Nations to peace and security in the Gulf region and beyond. Economic sanctions have taken a terrible toll. They must be lifted now.

Cortright and Lopez are authors of ``The Sanctions Decade: Assessing U.N. Strategies in the 1990s.'' The authors can be reached at the Progressive Media Project, 409 E. Main St., Madison WI 53703. Distributed for the project by KRT News Service.

Here is Bush admitting that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!!

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/

Take your blinders off! You would not know the truth if it hit you in the face! You are a perfect example of someone who can do nothing but spout Bush's views! How does it feel to ba a lemming?

Answer 4

The president could only be liable if the Congress will file an impeachment case against him on grounds provided for in the Constitution.

Answer 5

This entire administration (including Karl Rove) should be tried as war criminals. Your lame excuse for this war mongering bunch of terrorists is a prime example of why the world hates the usa. with this bunch of cowards and killers in office, i am ashamed to be an american.

Answer 6

Definitely. The sooner the better before he starts another illegal war.

Answer 7

you really dont know what your talking about .TORTURE is a war crime , the UN didnt want to invade iraq But no I dont want our President tried for war crimes. He has been indicted by the Hauge for war crimes for invading a sovereign country namely\ Iraq

Answer 8

If it's possible yes.But unfortuanatly no one can do that otherwise he would get killed by the devil (Bush).why not?He's taken so many lives.He needs to be punished in hell by GOD!

Answer 9

Only if the idiots who voted him to a 2nd term are tried with him.

Answer 10

no.he is protected by (i beleive)the fouteenth ammendment, the right to be free from selective prosecution. if you bust him,you are gonna have to bust all of them.