Is the George Walker Bush Administration guilty of War Crimes?

Question

Republicans,

Let's put all of our stubborness aside and think about this objectively. How would you feel if 9/11 occurred on a dialy basis as it has in Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Do you really want to get those who were involved in 9/11 such as bin Laden or perhaps the White House? Was it really right to go after innocent citizens, hospitals, media outlets, and market places that had absolutely nothing to do with attacking America? Do you honestly believe that just any blood would appease 9/11?
How can anybody condone torture and indefinitely detaining people who were trying to defend their country against the occupiers? How can anybody condone the use of kennel-style prisons? Hitler would have been proud of George Walker Bush and all of his supporters.
In light of all this, how can anybody, especially those from a Christian nation, say that the perpetrators of these disgraceful and Satanic acts shouldn't be tried for their war crimes against humanity?

boardrunn,

I didn't want to get too explicit here but tying up men's genitals and their hands to electrical wires and making them stand in exteme positions with the use of dogs and dragging men around naked on a leash and sleep deprivation and feeding people their own feces are forms of torture in my book.

In GWB's book torture is only when major damage is done to organs. In my book this is far beyond torture when bodily organs have been harmed permanently.

George Walker Bush is an evil Nazi. Now get over it and start helping America instead of trying to cover up for the evil GWB stands for.

You are witnessing the Nazification of America.

Answer 1

Hiding behind a one sided Congress that are allowing these methods to continue to happen is really the worst of the crime. Responsibility should be raised, and a real investigation has got to be done! America wants these changes to occur. A Democrat Congress will put a stop to the one sided rule and allow the American Constitution to work properly. War crimes will be a venture in the future I believe. George Bush, and the right wing Conservatives live in fear daily on this network of the exposure of the real facts, and agendas of the Conservative party.

Answer 2

How would you feel if 9/11 occurred on a dialy basis as it has in Iraq? Probably pissed off, but 3000 people aren't dieing there everyday and we're hardly doing anything, they're killing each other.

Do you really want to get those who were involved in 9/11 such as bin Laden or perhaps the White House? Yes

Was it really right to go after innocent citizens, hospitals, media outlets, and market places that had absolutely nothing to do with attacking America? Terrorists hide in those places you idiot. They'd use their own mother as a human shield.

Do you honestly believe that just any blood would appease 9/11?
The blood of all terrorists, thats what I want. And they happen to be in all those Middle East Countries.

How can anybody condone torture and indefinitely detaining people who were trying to defend their country against the occupiers? An eye ofr an eye. They torture our people, that gives us the right to torture their people.

How can anybody condone the use of kennel-style prisons?
Kennel Style prisons? They live better than most people here in America do freely. They get 4200 calerie diets. Yeah they're really suffering.

Hitler would have been proud of George Walker Bush and all of his supporters. I don't remember Hitler being attacked first by someone for no reason.

In light of all this, how can anybody, especially those from a Christian nation, say that the perpetrators of these disgraceful and Satanic acts shouldn't be tried for their war crimes against humanity? I'm not a Christian or any religion. Religion is a sham and the Muslims prove it everyday

Answer 3

OK, let's put all stubborness aside and think objectively. We did not go into Iraq because we thought that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11. We went into Iraq because we thought that Sadam Hussein had WMDs AND because Iraq had ignored some UN resolutions for 5 or more years. Incidentally, GW Bush and his administration were not the only people in the world that were wrong about the WMDs. Many other nations and most of our congress thought so also. Now, since we are there, we have had all kinds of problems and many mistakes were made by our side. The Iraqis are fighting amongst themselves and insurgents are coming in from other countries and trying to disrupt the formation of a government by the Iraqi people. Why are they doing this? Because, if we succeed and get the Iraqis a free government, the terrorists will have failed and that would be a deterrent to their continued growth. We are, as a matter of fact, at war with terrorism. So you need to cast a little of the blame for the conditions in Iraq toward the nations that are sponsoring all of this insurgency.

Who is condoning torture? All GW wanted was clarification of the vague and general guidelines that the Geneva convention has on torture. When you argue torture, you need to get an agreement of the identification of torture with the party with whom you are arguing. For example, you may consider torture to be loud music in a cold room. I do not.

As far as getting those that were involved in 9/11, we have captured some and are looking for more of them.

How do you feel about cutting an innocent civilian's head off on TV? How do you feel about forcing one to vocally change his religion with a gun to his head? Are these not evil and satanic acts?

All GW and his supporters are trying to do is protect our nation and it's inhabitants. Sad to say, that includes you regardless of the obstacles you throw up against it.

Answer 4

Wow, so much misinformation in your question, I hardly know where to start...

What makes you think we ever "went after" innocent citizens and hospitals? Collateral damage is a tragic effect of war, but it is not the same as "going after" someone. Controlling media outlets is a valid aspect of any war operation.

No one condones torture in this country, and when there have been legitimate abuse, the perpetrators have been punished. It is definitely not a government policy. BTW, notice I said "abuse" not torture. Most of the reports that got attention were abuses of the prisoners, not torture. There were a very few that did fall into the latter category. Correctional institution inspectors looked at GITMO and called it a model for modern prisons.

9/11 was one act of MANY perpetrated on us by terrorists. It is not the only front of this war any more than Germany was the only front of WWII.

"...condone indefinitely detaining people trying to defend their country...?" How are terrorists from Iran and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and internal Iraqi terrorists deliberately blowing up other Iraqis defending their country? What an unbelievable stupid statement.

Unfortunately, the act of interrogation is totally appropriate. Interrogation...properly done...is not torture when it is being used to extract vital information. Sorry, if you don't see the difference, but there is one. If our prisons in Iraq were so awful, why did the prisoners beg our troops to stay when the Iraqis took them over?

Satanic acts??? You must lead an amazingly sheltered life. Luckily, you have our brave soldiers doing the dirty work so you can go on in your sheltered little bubble of bliss.

Answer 5

First, as an American Christian, it is hard to consider any government as primarily motivated by Christianity. So please don't paint Christ and His followers with the same brush as American politicians.

As for war crimes, there's not enough evidence just yet. Mistakes have been made. I would like to know more about any alleged mistreatment of detainees. It is my understanding that as detainees, they are not Iraqi combatants but suspected members of al-Qaeda. It will take more investigation to determine that. This should, of course, be expedited. It seems that the U.S. has too many irons in the fire and there is too much at stake right now. I would like to see some embedded reporters reporting from Guantanamo, though.

War is hell. Iraq was hell before we got there. Not only because of the mass-murdering dictator, Saddam Hussein, but also because of the poorly considered, and gruesome results of the U.N.'s economic sanctions that preceded the war. Humanitarian aid was sent to Saddam's cronies to build more palaces while orphans, newborns, the frail and elderly died at unprecedented rates. We can kill the innocents far more effectively without bombs.

There's been a long series of errors. My best advice is pray. You won't turn this around by accusing troops of targeting innocent citizens, and hospitals. Yes there are innocents who suffer and die, but that is different than saying that American troops were "to go after" them.

As usual, an attempt for dialogue (as your question first appears to be) quickly dissolves once a comparison is made with Hitler or Nazis. There is nothing, I mean NOTHING, going on now in Iraq that approaches the primal evil that Hitler and Nazis represented. It may be bad, but check your history. Right and wrong has never been so well-defined and clearly outlined in a war as it was in World War II.

Answer 6

Im guessing you are an average citizen. Your life, average, less than average and probably infused with personal problems that leave you feeling like a victim with no one to blame. Then along comes the ultra creative whiners club, Michael Moore, Sean Pean, so many other unqualified opinions from RICH people designed to stir up the lower class angst against a government you NEVER had any interest before all the hype, before you loaded your head with self congratulatory misinformation from tainted sources bent on media vengence over the last inept President of the 1990's....and suddenly you think regurgitating flabby accusations against the President is deserving of a legitimate response? Do you know how long you have been hated in the Middle East? Try befriending some Arabs here in the States, and listen to the real people from that country...if you had done that before 9/11 you would have been terrified to leave US soil.

My point is, you are quoting from extremist sources of information in an extreme situation with extreme opinions on all sides...and ANY President who would have stepped into power during the turn of the century would have had an angry BEEHIVE of anti-American sentiment to deal with.

You just sound like another disciple of radical thinking. A sheep like believer who has taken sides.

The real truth is a lot harder to sort out that quoting cartoon like assessments of a situation you cant control from your middle class world.

Answer 7

You do have a way with words. "How would you feel if 9/11 occurred on a dialy basis as it has in Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11."

I've never heard it expressed quite that way, and I think it should be reprinted in every Bushista publication from now until the end of thier brutal and dictatorial regime.

Bring em' on!

Yer doin' a heckuva job, Bushie!

Hey, Laural up there. This is the First time I've heard that. I've only hanging around here a little while but honestly, couldn't you come up with something better than "dumb!*s? Now isn't that nicer, more,on?

Answer 8

in case you would be extra particular i'd desire to understand what those crimes are. He became into interior of his capacity to deliver the army to Afghanistan and Iraq and get Congressional approval to do circulate into those countries even nonetheless he did not prefer it. They arrested Saddam and drove the Taliban out of finished capacity in Afghanistan. The Iraq war would have been a mistake in hindsight yet Saddam placed out lots phony information to intelligence that he became into looked as though it would have WMDs. i think of whether he have been charged, the president might pardon him (even Obama) because of the fact attempting him would not be interior the superb activity of the country with all the different issues it rather is dealing with. I even have heard of no such stream to attempt him for war crimes.

Answer 9

By all legal definitions...yes he is. But he will not be tried. Not one US president has ever been brought up on war crimes. It will never happen. The people of the United Sates would have to maneuver so much public opinion for something like that to happen. When you take into account how many citizens are blinded by their "political faith" it is understandable why presidents get away with it.

Answer 10

I didnt see the article that said we are responsible for the decades of car bombs and civil unrest in the middle east, oh what, its all the administrations fault , did you know its bushs fault for jesus being put on a cross and made to suffer....oh, wait, no maybe it wasnt bush.....but still you'll find a way to blame him and the administration.....