Are we going to have to put Clinton and Gore on trial for war crimes, to get at Bush and Cheney ?

Question

Is America going to have to put Bill Clinton and Al Gore on trial for war crimes,

So we can put Bush and Cheney on trail ?

After all, Clinton and Gore illegally attacked/invaded:

Serbia,Iraq, Sudan,Hiati,Kosavo,Afghanistan,

All without Congressional or UN approval.

Wouldn't we legally be obligated to put them on trial first ?

Otherwise Bush and Cheney could use the lack of trial for their war crimes, as a defense for their war crimes.

And wouldn't the world court have to put :

Jacques Chirac - France
Jean Chrétien - Canada
Gerhard Schroeder - Germany
Tony Blair - Britian

And all the rest of the NATO leader's for the illegal attack against Serbia in 1998 and 1999 ?

The UN Security Council did not authorise them to attack Serbia.

Isn't that a war crime ?

Osama, But Clinton did.

He gave halliburton a no bid contract worth billion in kosavo.

Cantcu, The UN or the Security Council never authorized the invasion of Haiti, not the Attack against Serbia.

The only mission that Clinton used the Military for that had UN approval, was the Pease Keeping mission in Bosnia.

Answer 1

utopia

Answer 2

Clinton didn't invade a coutry and he didn't get one person killed in Operation desert Fox. He took out 50 military targets the first night, and all you Republicans were against it! The others were Nato and UN operations and Sanctioned!

Clinton attacked Haiti? When was that? I could have sworn:
The Security Council authorized the United States on Sunday to lead a multinational invasion to drive out the military rulers of Haiti and restore exiled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power.

By securing the United Nations' blessing for the first time for an armed intervention in the Western Hemisphere, the Clinton administration demonstrated broad support for the ouster of the military leaders and raised pressure on them to step aside.

The Security Council set no deadline for U.S. forces to launch the attack, leaving the timing to President Clinton. U.S. officials said no action is imminent, and Washington has yet to declare that an invasion will occur.

DATE: Monday, August 1, 1994 TAG: 9408010072
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY JULIA PRESTON, THE WASHINGTON POST

Since when is Nato the US?

Bet you are for the Iraqi illegal invasion!

And please tell me how many illegal CIA torture camps did Clinton set up around the world. None wasn't it? How many times did he refuse to allow the International Red Cross to see captives, something WE DEMANDED! How many times did he violate the constitution and the Geneva Conventions. How many spare parts for F-14's was he selling to Iraq, like Bush and the Pentagon are? None wasn't it!

Don't compare the worst alcoholic president in history to Bill Clinton! Clinton has more brains in his little finger than Bush ever had!

Answer 3

In this country I believe the precedent for disregarding the constitution was set by Truman when he involved the US in the Korean war. In my opinion, this was one of the most damaging events to our constitution until GW and Cheney's reign of distruction and/or disregard for our countries most important document.

The founding fathers were greatly concerned with becoming involved in wars not directly related to our countries security or any war in general that the majority of the people did not feel was necessary. That's why the constitution requires a two third approval (in both houses of congress i think) before we can go to war.
Pres Trumans' changing of the terminology from "war" to "police action" supposedly meant congress (and therefor the people) really didn't have to agree. This was the begining of the Presidents power to initiate war without the approval of anyone (really).

No matter what U call it, the founding fathers totally did not intend for the President or any one man (or woman) to be able to put other people's lives and the security of our country at risk. (We had just gotten rid of having "kings")
They knew a 2/3's majority vote would be difficult, if not impossible. That's why it also requires that much agreement to change the constitution. They didn't want us involved in wars of any kind, unless it was for our own protection.

Unfortunately, the number one product that the US effectively and profitablly exports, is Weapons, Weapon Systems, and Security Technologies. We sold them to Saddam Hussain for almost as long as he was in power, with no regard whatsoever for the well being of the people of Iraq. (Of course we only sold him our oldest weapons, like mustard gas.)

There is probably no people we care less about than the people of the middle east, except of course, the Africans, whom have suffered much more mistreatment, tragedy and death, in recent history than the rest of the world combined.. Yet we're not invading there, to promote African Freedom.

So really, the answer to your question is that (most) of the other presidents didn't (openly) gain financially from the invasion of other countries. Many probably truly believed it was either for our own ultimate protection from "the commies" or the safety of the people of the region we're destroying. (Although many would later join some type of consulting body, funded primarily by the Military Complex.)
Bush and Cheney both have big interests in Oil. And both will gain significant wealth during and after our occupation of the area. Haliburton is one of many companies that continue recieving no bid contracts in Iraq while consistantly overruning their budgets with no explaintions or oversight. Chevron posted the highest quarterly profit for any corporation in the history of the stock market 2 of the last 6 quarters. Yet, myself I can barely afford to drive to work.
That's a frigging crime in itself.
But killing for money, is generally considered a crime.
Unless U kill the Right people, i guess.
God bless the victims and their families of the Sept 11th Crime of Treason against this country.

Answer 4

If Bush/Clinton had finished the job in the first Gulf War we wouldn't have had to hunt down Saddam this time. I think this country has more serious issues at hand and shouldn't be worrying about prosecuting Bush/Cheney for alleged "war crimes."

Answer 5

Your never ending question can be wrapped up with one word...economy.


Watch the movie "Judgement at Neurenberg", and see where all the crimes the Nazis were accused of had something to do with the world's bad economy which suddenly perked up soon after W.W. ll.

Answer 6

NO they should not they have committed no war crimes.And katydid get off you damned soapbox bad stuff happens in war.I know I was there 16 months.And as for torture I would torture, kill, or almost anything to protect my family and friends or even strangers from getting killed by chicken***t terrorist who sneak around instead of a face to face fight.

Answer 7

Halliburton and oil contracts under Bill Clinton:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=15426

Answer 8

Prerequisities to be accused for war crimes:
1. You loose the war
2. You have political opponents that will gain from your trial
3. You are weaker than your political opponents.

This has nothing to do with legality, UN or whatsoever.

Answer 9

if that were true than there could never be another war crime charge because Johnson was never charged during Vietnam and the attacks in cambodia and other neighboring areas.

Answer 10

It seems a good idea but u know politicians,they'll say god told them to do it for world peace !!

Answer 11

THERE'S NO COMPARISON THERE JUNIOR!! CLINTON/GORE DIDN'T START AN UNENDING QUAGMIRE FOR ASTRONOMICAL NO-BID CONTRACT PERSONAL PROFITEERING!!