2006-11-14 10:31:50 · 14 answers · asked by Moore 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
They were not war crimes. To be war crimes, they have to be done to innocent civilians or to military people whose government signed with the Geneva Convention. There is a specific clause in the Geneva convention that these stateless militaries never signed the Geneva Convention.
It's also U.S. policy under the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy. It's the whole reason why the U.S. stocks nuclear weapons and stocked biological and chemical weapons. If a country was to unleash a chemical weapon on teh U.S., we would have the ability to do the same to them. Although torture doesn't work as a way to gather intellegence, it does work as a deterrent against them. They might not fear prison or death, but they do fear secret prisons and Gitmo.
2006-11-14 11:11:58 · answer #1 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
At present, he cannot be tried in the US under federal laws.
Yes, he violate federal laws by committing war crimes (18 USC 2441). This was confirmed by the US Supreme Court. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).
The problem is, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which effectively gave amnesty to any federal officer who committed war crimes. So much for respecting the rule of law.
2006-11-14 10:42:09 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
what war crimes? which ones did he commit? where is your backing? where are you getting this info? what is your research based on? for the love of God quit repeating what you hear and believing every little bit of media hype, do some research and form your OWN educated opinion before blurting non coherent uneducated one liners. You probably think this whole thing is about oil also dont you.
2006-11-14 11:19:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Before you can try somebody for 'war crimes' you have to be able to quote the law that was violated.
Otherwise we can try you for 'war crimes' because we did not like something you did.
2006-11-14 11:09:59 · answer #4 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For one concern the suggestions became into believed by making use of maximum human beings of intel companies in the worldwide. The removing of Saddam became right into a rely human beings national coverage as handed by making use of Congress and signed into regulation by making use of president Clinton. Oh and so some distance as torture is in contact i did not see individuals dismembering Muslim prisoners, you be attentive to like Danial Pearl became into on the internet. Nor did the president authorize the homicide of 3000 harmless human beings in a ask your self attack on the WTC. Its humorous to me how liberals can talk approximately "torture" and thoroughly forget with regard to the movements of the human beings we are scuffling with.
2016-10-17 07:09:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he gets tried for War Crimes, it stands to reason that George Bush and Tony Blair should be standing either side of him in the dock !!
The buck stops with the Boss !!
2006-11-14 10:41:01 · answer #6 · answered by Hello 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No. Some sound like home made mind readers espousing theories as if they were facts. I really get tired of reading that sort of thing which ever side it comes from.
2006-11-14 10:54:29 · answer #7 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes - he should swing alongside his old friend Saddam
2006-11-14 17:25:23 · answer #8 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely!!!
He was aware of all the atrocities that were being perpetrated in Abu Grahib prision. He is also responsible of the quagmire that Irak war turned out to be.
2006-11-14 10:36:48 · answer #9 · answered by Atreides1998 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Based on what? Can we put this silliness to rest based on lack of reality?
2006-11-14 10:36:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋