Benjamin Ferencz, a prosecutor at the Nuremburg Trials (trials for some of the key politicians of Nazi Germany), said that Bush should be tried along with Saddam Hussein for war crimes and starting aggressive wars. The Army's field manual also requires permission for an offensive war. Also, it is said that under the Nuremberg Principles, an international guideline for determining war crimes, that Bush should be tried for these crimes.
2006-10-24 13:31:18 · 14 answers · asked by ottermop 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
that'll never happen...i'd be satisfied if he were forced to SPELL 'humanity'...live, no teleprompter, no practice sessions...it would make for a great pay-per-view special...
2006-10-24 13:38:14 · answer #1 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, Bush should not be tried for crimes against humanity. If anything, he was doing his best to preserve it. It should be known that Saddam Hussein actually burried men, women, and children in pits all across his nation during his reign, like in the hollocaust. Has Bush commited such horrible crimes? No. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, and disallowed any protestations to his ideas or beliefs. Has Bush forced us to help those people in Iraq? No. Saddam Hussein was an evil man that provoked this war by threatening the United States and not understanding the repercussions. Also, you should understand that the Nuremburg Trials only apply to Nazi Germany, which is no longer a global problem. One must ask: Is Bush a Nazi German? I think not. Do the Nuremberg Principles therefore apply to anyone involved in the Iraq War, for example, President Bush? Absolutely one hundred percent NOT. Please review your facts.
2006-10-24 13:44:24 · answer #2 · answered by Melanie P 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
read it for yourself
"As people living in the United States we have an obligation not to close our eyes, cover our ears and remain silent....."
".......War crimes are divided into two broad categories. The first are called crimes against peace. Crimes against peace include the planning, preparation, or initiation of a war of aggression. In other words one country cannot make aggressive war against another country. Nor can a country settle a dispute by war; it must always, and in good faith, negotiate a settlement. The second category are what we can call crimes against humanity; I am including here crimes against civilians and soldiers. These are violations of the rules as to the means and manner by which war is to be conducted once begun. These include the following prohibitions: killing of civilians, indiscriminate bombing, the use of certain types of weapons, killing of defenseless soldiers, ill treatment of POWs and attacks on non-military targets.
Any violation of these two sets of laws is a war crime; if the violations are done on purpose, recklessly or knowingly, they are considered very serious and called grave breaches; Nazis and Japanese following World War II were hanged for such grave breaches."
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm
2006-10-24 13:42:22 · answer #3 · answered by rwl_is_taken 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I strongly doubt that the Army's field manual says that President Bush should be tried for war crimes. You might want to check your sources.
2006-10-24 14:22:52 · answer #4 · answered by HoyaHorns 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
if someone want to tru me on war crimes i said go for it, becasue i know i aint done ****. but if i was bush i wouldn't want to go to court considering the fact the envasion of iraq was illegal in the first place. but why stop with bush. Clintons sanctions on Iraq killed over 500,000 people mostly kids. Regan sold arms to iran and then sponsored death squads in south america. and all the while we turn our backs to genocide after genocide. the whole things a damn shame!!! it's really to bad there's no oil in Darfur because those people really need help.
2006-10-24 13:43:22 · answer #5 · answered by sapace monkey 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There have not been any wars in US history that define the situation we have today. The worlds enemies today hide in sand traps and street fight. They have no rules - no one leader - they just want us dead. Wake up.
2006-10-24 13:43:25 · answer #6 · answered by Paige2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No he had authorization to go to war with Iraq. Are you willing to charge Clinton with war crimes. He bombed Iraq every year he was in office.
Over 500,000 children died in Iraq during Clinton's reign.
2006-10-24 13:37:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, he should, along with the CIA prisons and Guantanamo, and wiretaps.
2006-10-24 13:34:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No....
If you think he is so bad, move if you live in the US.
2006-10-24 13:39:13 · answer #9 · answered by mrscmmckim 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes he should.
2006-10-24 22:50:53 · answer #10 · answered by Curious1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋