Can George W. Bush be tried as a war criminal after he leaves office?

Question

Based on his record of unecessary war(s) should he be tried for genocide, war crimes & crimes, against humanity?

Since we all now know that the reason for Iraq was an elaborate lie. (and Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 )

Answer 1

Unbelievable. You really believe these asinine kook thoughts. Maybe when you're 74, you could look back and wonder why you wasted the brain cells of your youth. Doesn't anyone explain things to you? Do you live in an elaborate cardboard box with three and a half bathrooms?

. Was 9/11 an American conspiracy?
. Should we tremble within our borders and not dare to venture out unless the Europeans hold out their supervisory hands?
. When we find perpetrators, or persons of interest strapped with bombs across their chest, should we set them up at the Hilton and charge them for misguided misdemeanors?
. How do you suggest we find these misunderstood criminals? Call out from the middle of the street, or does this infringe on your rights? We could find them by word of mouth.
. Do you know what genocide means?
. Do you know what a war criminal is - the misunderstood man wearing explosives named Bush? Because his name is Bush?

I want to say that you aren't a part of humanity, but that's too harsh. I want to be kind. You're more like a blob of goo.

Answer 2

The Terrorists that bombed the international commerce center and the Pentagon are warfare criminals. For some reason people nonetheless hate on Bush even although he saved the unemployment below 6% and each and each and every in view that Obama took workplace that is been increasing. How might want to or not that is trees fault if his total 2 words had an more advantageous monetary device than Obamas time in? Bush wasn't ideal...yet damn i might want to fairly have him than Obama. I type of favor Hilary Beat him. a minimum of she helps our troops and does not reduce as many advantages as Obama has. Us protection force households are suffering the following!

Answer 3

Probably not, because we all know that he is the Leader (albeit senile and devoid of intelligence) of the Free World [sic].

Hey - if more people used their brains, then we would not have to deal with questions like this. The only reason for starting a war is to keep the military service occupied. If you have a war-machine but no war, then how can you justify continued spending on it? It doesn't matter whether the war makes sense - so long as we can create propaganda in favour of our cause.

Bush senior was never tried for war crimes, and neither will his son be. It doesn't make sense, but unfortunately that is the way things are today.

Answer 4

He and all the major players in his administration could be tried for war crimes. The question is: Will that happen. Most probably, he he were tried for anything, it would be for usurpation of his power to start the war in the first place.

Answer 5

No.

Genocide does not apply as he is not trying to wipe out a race or ethnic group.

War crimes?? What war crimes?? Saddam violated a cease fire agreement the law is technically on Bush's side.

Crimes against humanity?? Huh??

Here's the facts..

First, since 1991 a continuous state of war has existed between the U.S. and Iraq because Iraq failed to comply with the provisions of the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement, U.N. Security Council Resolution 687. U.S. military action was properly authorized by Congress under the provisions of the War Powers Resolution, an authority that remains in force because of Iraq's failure to comply with the cease fire. 687 required Iraq to voluntarily disarm within 45 days. We know it did not because of the findings of UNSCOM, booted out of Iraq in 1998.

Second, Iraq's foiled attempt to assasinate the elder President Bush constitutes an act of war that gives the U.S. independent authority to wage war under International Law and Article 51 of the U.N. charter.

Third, Iraqi payments to the family members of Palestinian suicide bombers constitute an act of war against our ally Israel. Then there's Saddam's treatment of his own people, which justifies deposing him on humanitarian grounds.

All of these justifications existed when the U.S. Congress voted overwhelmingly to approve military action in Fall, 2002. And this vote occurred before the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the 17th resolution requiring Saddam to disarm.

Congress GAVE the President authorization so you'd have to put all the congresspersons who voted on invading Iraq on trial as well.

I won't hold my breath kid.

Answer 6

Thank you for providing a demonstration of why we cannot trust Europeans.

Here you are wanting to hold a political kangaroo court because we did not do what you wanted us to.

Maybe we should have some trials of European politicians for trying to support and protect Saddam?

Answer 7

Termanitor & CM & Koalamcomics thingys. Koalacomics... I dont know what year your from... but were talking about the Present ...The Future...GET Your Head STRAIGHTENED & A new Brain . I think the has come when you two for the 1st time in your lives get a BRAIN. Only then you both will think *SMART*. But Other wise he should! IT IS A WHOLE LIE. CM shut yo mouth about sadam. democrats wanted sadam to be captured and be brought to justice TOO!! ya hear? JUSTICE! George bush unforunately can't be trialed because he already has a trial....with the DEVIL.

Answer 8

No, not under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court because the US has chosen not to participate in it not wanting American generals to be subject to international law if they do wrong, but rather by US military justice.

Answer 9

You sound like an a$$. Bush was able to topple Saddam's regime. Saddam was an evil man that tortured, raped, killed, and starved his own people. Should we have let him continue?

Plus, not so long ago (Mr. Clinton!), Democrats seemed to think that Iraq had WMDs as well and thought Iraq was dangerous, but now they sing a different tune. Why?

Answer 10

No



I don't like GW either, no more than I like any other "public servant" (Yeah...RIGHT!) but enough is enough man. They all lie and thieve, like there would be any difference in who is in the White House....jeeze.