2007-01-19 00:47:53 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
it is against international law to go to war to remove a head of state, and isn't that exactly why the say they went to war, to remove Saddam? or was it something else??????
2007-01-19 01:18:59 · update #1
Not until they actually commit some.
Cracker be specific what crimes did they commit. Are the terrorist and Iraq signers of the Geneva Convention and if not are they still protected by it. Were the POW's uniformed soldiers? Get your facts straight. If Bush had committed war crimes the media and Dems would have already convicted him.
Cracker BTW we don't have to live according to Belgium laws.
2007-01-19 00:51:02 · answer #1 · answered by joevette 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't see what crime he could be charged with.
One of the major problems about the whole debate over Iraq has been ignorance. Many people make sweeping statements like "the war was illegal" when they really mean is "the war was immoral". I wonder how much time these people have spent studying international law, because any lawyer would tell you it is an amazingly complex thing. For the record I am no lawyer and cannot say conclusively whether it was legal/illegal. What I can say, from extensive study of constitutions, politics and government, is that the UK has something called Parliamentary Sovereignty, which is absolute. In other words, what Parliament wants it gets, and anything it passes is lawful and cannot be struck down by a higher authority (as there isn't one).
Whatever your opinion of Blair, whether he was right or wrong, a saint or the anti-christ, fair enough, but that's not what the question was about. The question is should he be charged with war crimes. Well he asked parliament to vote on the matter before he ever used force (something UK prime ministers hardly ever do) and parliament passed a resolution authorizing the government to use military force. The obvious conclusion therefore is that force was lawful.
There are also other reasons I think could make it hard for any trial to be legitimate. First, only those countries that recognize international courts jurisdiction will send their citizens before them - so that rules America and George Bush out right away. The UK does recognize some international courts, but on the basis that they only have jurisdiction in circumstances where the country concerned is unable to provide an impartial, independent and fair legal process. The UK could certainly do those things - and arguably already has with the independent enquiries already made into the war, each of which was a legal process. So that probably rules out Blair too.
The other major factor is that both the UK and USA have veto power on the United Nations Security Council, and no court can have UN authority without their support.
So while I am not an expert on international law, I am fairly confident that no grounds exist for a war crimes trial.
2007-01-19 02:40:45 · answer #2 · answered by mark 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dear Partner,
Absolutely! And here's more.
Since the United Nations determined in 1960 that colonialism is a crime against humanity, there is no longer a need for plebiscites. The solution is to give Puerto Rico her sovereignty.
But being the United States government does not want to, it continues to advocate the use of plebiscites to find out what Puerto Ricans want. Even if 100% of Puerto Ricans would want to continue being a US colony, Puerto Rico would still be obligated to accept her sovereignty to then decide what she wants to do.
The only thing these plebiscites are good for is to divide Puerto Ricans. A Puerto Rican didn’t invade us to make us a colony. When will we understand that we need to unite?
This is why we must peacefully protest at least 3 times a year until Puerto Rico is decolonized!
José M López Sierra
www.TodosUnidosDescolonizarPR.blogspot.com
2014-09-16 03:38:43 · answer #3 · answered by Jose 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
War crimes have very specific definitions. And neither Bush nor Blair have come even remotely close to having committed any.
Just because you are against war and don't like them, doesn't make them "war criminals".
----
Yes, removing a head of state is criminal. That's why Clinton and Albright need to be prosecuted for initiating an unprovoked war, without approval by the UN, against a country where we had no national interests, bombing civilian targets from high altitude, ensuring collateral damage.
But the Coalitions that Bush and Blair assembled, under the authorization for use of force in UN Resolution 1441, was legitimate. This is because the ceasefire from the Gulf War was dependent upon Iraq conforming to the UN resolution requirements. I've sourced it so you can read it and disabuse yourself of your fallacious beliefs.
2007-01-19 00:55:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
in an ideal world No as troops would not be in Iraq. however as they are and ultimately Bush and Blair are the people who sent them there they are morally responsible if not legally. The fact is however that they will never face censure for there actions to the wider international community as there is no-one with enough power to do this.
2007-01-19 05:41:18 · answer #5 · answered by iain d 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's amazing how many people are totally unaware of the crimes that Bush and Blair have ultimate responsibility for!
The Iraq war is illegal under international law. America has used chemical weapons, torture and acted in violation of the Geneva convention - crimes under US law & international law.
Cases have already been raised for Bush & Blair, citing crimes against humanity.
People need to start learning what's going on in the world instead of absorbing propaganda from 'news' sources such as Fox
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/scotland/comment/0,,1869490,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0619-09.htm
http://www.rense.com/general38/belg.htm
** UPDATE **
mark - Just to respond to your sweeping statement that the Iraq war was not illegal. I'm afraid you're wrong. I have researched it.
Here's the proof:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/iraqwar.html
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/
There is no debate - the war is illegal under international law. Period.
2007-01-19 01:09:38 · answer #6 · answered by Cracker 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Lets just waste more of our money and prosecute all the leaders that have messed up trying to get rid of leaders that have killed or tortured others---Blair is gone. Bush is going. I think our concentration should be on a better government and cleaning up and getting out of Iraq and stop whinning and blaming individuals for a group voted war--
2007-01-19 00:53:44 · answer #7 · answered by ARTmom 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
as much as the Dem in me would love to see bush and Blair prosecuted for war crimes they really haven't commit them. So the answer is no
2007-01-19 00:56:12 · answer #8 · answered by mrs. smutty aka sodachix 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No. They are not the only leaders who put troops in to Iraq. We have had help from others.
Plus there have been no war crimes committed. Being stupid is not a crime.
2007-01-19 01:04:26 · answer #9 · answered by Reported for insulting my belief 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!
They HAVE breached several articles of the Geneva Conventions, They deliberately and with willfull intent invaded a sovereign nation that posed them no material threat whatsoever, and they knew so at the time.
Beyond this in the course of the occupation that followed the illegal invasion (Not backed or supported by the UN), they have undoubtedly commited war crimes. Anybody that is understanding of international law and has seen what happened in Fallujeh knows that Bush's crimes rank higher than Saddams.
They should definately be charged and tried for war crimes.
2007-01-19 00:56:12 · answer #10 · answered by kenhallonthenet 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋