2007-01-27 06:21:59 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
At the heart of the concept of war crimes is the idea that an individual can be held responsible for the actions of a country or that nation's soldiers.
Genocide, crimes against humanity, mistreatment of civilians or combatants during war can all fall under the category of war crimes. Genocide is the most severe of these crimes.
The body of laws that define a war crime are the Geneva Conventions, a broader and older area of laws referred to as the Laws and Customs of War, and, in the case of the former Yugoslavia, the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague (ICTY).
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
I would definately agree that our President has ordered the transfer of what he terms "enemy combatants" to other countries for torture and interrogation. This is a matter of public record. Our President has also held people in the jail (or should I say prison camp) at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba without proper writ of haebeus corpus...thereby knowingly removing their right to a fair and regular trial. This too, is a matter of public record. I give just two of these actions as justifiable reason to begain impeachment hearings on President Bush.
2007-01-27 09:10:52 · answer #1 · answered by rebotzo 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
President Bush gets impeached for some thing. it extremely is only the present fad to impeached lame duck presidents. Clinton replaced into impeached, yet no longer convicted. Bush will stay in workplace to the tip of his term. As commander-in-chief, he's in charge for the arm provider's habit. If he had or has sitting orders to apply torture or violate the Geneva convention, he would be at last tried for war crimes. He could be tried on the same time as a sitting president via the UN. no longer likely, yet attainable. Democrats could use that as a risk to get their policys by to regulation. the main possibly reason to question is falsifying the intelligence maximum acceptable as much as the Iraq war. it is going to likely be a vote of no self assurance. it is going to basically take place if Republicans start to distance themselves from the president. once you hear maximum acceptable Republicans critizing the presiden in this, you recognize impeachment is coming. i think of the totals so a techniques, the U. S. has killed greater people than Saddam in Iraq...i think of the U. S. is likewise forward in torture too. that's progression.
2016-12-16 14:55:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, just because you don't like the president and disagree with him on the war does not mean that he can be impeached. Now if it is proved that he lied and knew he lied about information than yes, he could be impeached. He could also be impeached if an intern gave him fellatio.
2007-01-27 06:29:36 · answer #3 · answered by bumpocooper 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Will you please provide a list of the specific, legally recognized "crimes" you are speaking of?
EDIT: Apparently you cannot list any alleged crimes. The fact is, GWB should not be impeached for doing an unpopular job despite what the idiot Liberals say.
2007-01-27 06:56:16 · answer #4 · answered by dave b 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Specifically what war crimes? What Laws? Did he violate the US Code?
"war crimes" without a specific reference to the law, the term is nothing more than political hot air.
2007-01-27 06:40:56 · answer #5 · answered by Agent 00X 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, simply disagreeing with a president's decision to go into a war, as many of us do, is not justification for impeachment.
2007-01-27 06:27:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
For war crimes, NO. For criminal negligence, Yes. If our top Generals are too incompetent too advise the president then what are paying them for? Bush apparently thinks that is the case. Thats why he ignored their advice that more troops were needed from the start and instead brought Schoonover out of retirement. Because out of four branches of the military he couldn't find one on active duty who was willing to spout bush political propaganda.
2007-01-27 06:40:09 · answer #7 · answered by rsay24 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
What war crimes?Please specify.Just because you dont agree with getting rid of the enemies that want to kill us doesnt mean the President commited war crimes..,well,in line with your thinking then I guess the democrats that voted for this war should be in line with him and so should Clinton since he also attacked Iraq and said Sadam was a threat..,guess people forgot his public address when he bombed Iraq.
2007-01-27 06:34:11 · answer #8 · answered by jnwmom 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I think he should go to prison and rott there because he knew of everything that was going to happen, because it was all his plan. If you don't believe me, then go to www.loosechange911.com and watch the 90 minute video and you will see alot of what you didn't see on TV. He is a terrorist. When the Twin Towers got hit the second time, it wasn't a plane, it was a US missle. Please look at the site and ask no more.
2007-01-27 07:17:45 · answer #9 · answered by Manda 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. What crime did he commit to warrant an impeachment?
2007-01-27 06:29:29 · answer #10 · answered by rwill54287 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋