Do you think the Bush administration should be tried as war criminals in addition to being impeached?

Question

Tell me your honest opinion. Tell me if Bush & Company, after impeachment, will be tried as war criminals for their part in allowing some American soldiers to kill, rape, and torture Iraqi civilians. Are they also responsible for the illegal occupation of Iraq?

Answer 1

My God yes!! Unwarranted agression, systematic mass-torture, secret prisons, exporting people to countries where they were then killed, lying to the entire world, breaking every treaty in place!! These greedy chickenhawk jackasses deserve a trial in Belgium more than Slobo did!!

Answer 2

Please pay attention because we're getting tired of answering the same dim-witted questions over & over again due to your short-term memory loss. Next time you'll just have to search the archives to find this information:

Nobody in the Bush administration will be impeached, nor will they be tried as war criminals due to the illegal actions of certain soldiers. Those soldiers in question have been taken into custody, charged with the crimes they committed, and will pay the penalty. Had the Bush administration or the commanders in Iraq tried to cover up those crimes, they could be charged themselves - but they didn't, so they won't.

They will not be charged with torture because 1) the definitions of what constitutes torture are still being hammered out and 2) the murderous actions of the enemy in this conflict against kidnapped civilians and captured coalition soldiers far outweigh any "torture" inflicted by coalition personnel against captured terrorists & other enemy combatants.

They will not be charged with "the illegal occupation of Iraq" because we are not illegally occupying Iraq. In fact, the legal government of Iraq has requested repeatedly that we stay.

Got any more stupid questions?

Answer 3

The American soldiers are not "Occupying" Iraq illegally. They went over there with the consent of Congress, which is made up of BOTH Republicans and Democrats, in order to free a captive nation. Occupying means their stay is determined to be long term which is not the case in this instance nor has it ever been categorized as such, although it is noted that the soldiers will not leave until their job is done. As to the soldiers who abuse their authority, they should be punished for their crimes just as any other criminal should be. Bush did not instruct those who have done bad things to do so.

You state all the horrors that Bush has supposedly done to Iraq and want him impeached, how is that any different that what President Truman did to Japan when he authorized the dropping of not one but two atomic bombs and killed over 100,000 people. He was never impeached or tried as a war criminal. Just some food for thought.

Answer 4

Not sure how many times this questions can be asked, but I bet it's top 5 on yahoo answers. The occupation of Iraq is UN sanctioned. The soldiers who committed those crimes are in jail or on trial. No, to impeachment.

Should every democrat who voted for the war also be thrown out?

And what does that really get you except Cheney as President. Or Speaker Hastert. Or Condoliza Rice.

Answer 5

<> The Geneva convention states that the Occupier is responsible for the Occupied. This alone makes the current administration responsible for numerous egregious actions in Iraq, not limited to the killing, rapes and torture of Iraqi civilians (who are afforded protection under the Geneva Convention).

But then again, this administration doesn't give a sh*t about the Geneva Convention, do they?

Answer 6

Usually the winner of a war doesn't get charged with war crimes. The loser not only loses but can be charged with war crimes. Now in occupying a nation the occupying force can be charged example; Sharone of Israel was charged for his invasion of refugee camps in Lebanon. Nothing came of it. Soldiers are held responsible for rape, killing, and torture of civilians. Two cases have been taken before a grand jury.

Answer 7

get a clue how the Uniform Code of Military Justice works.

when you're done with that, realize that - if Bush were truly as stupid as you want him to be - Impeachment wouldn't mean much. After all, the last guy got off by denying knowledge of the verb "is".

While you're at it, realize that Impeachment *and* War Crimes Tribunal would count as Double Jeopardy, from which US citizens are protected by the Constitution.

Answer 8

First of all, that will never happen. America has slid too far. In my opinion the president (no president) should have the legal ability to make war without a congressional declaration of war. It used to be that way but they invented the term "police action" during the Korean war to get around the law and look at where we're at today. I'm afraid your premise of "illegal occupation" is incorrect. The sad fact is this war is legal, at least in the United States. Perhaps some other nation will call us on it and Bush will be tried in an international court. Perhaps that vision will help you sleep at night.

Answer 9

YES. if soldiers just follow orders, our rank-and-file should not be tried. obviously, the cabal of cheney-rumsfeld-wolfowitz-rice, with george w. bush as the electable face, should be tried.

the invasion was unlawful. congress never declared war.
international law forbade such a "pre-emotive strike"; please review the charter of the UN. there must be the threat of imminent attack, which everybody knew did not exist, even without the niger-yellow cake lie.

read the smirking chimp and http://www.aljazeera.com

Answer 10

I think the entire administration should be given uniforms and a helmet each and sent to Iraq to fight in this war they created. Let them witness the evil they created and live the lives of the people they take for granted and were willing to use as pawns with no value.