Should George W. Bush be charged with crimes against humanity?

Question

He invaded Iraq with the reason of Iraq having WMD's when Bush knew that they didn't have any.

Answer 1

There's only two scenarios that make such a war legal; defense of the nation or with a UN agreement.

Bush is a war criminal.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

If you believe that the international laws regarding conduct in war and human rights should apply equally to every nation, then yes, he should be charged - That's pretty obvious. The invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the UN. It was therefore illegal. Also, we've all seen gross abuses of human rights throughout the occupation by individuals he is responsible for, and the resultant mess that has worsened the security situation there. There is also a specific charge under international law for war profiteering which will be easy to prove, if you believe the war sceptics.

However, if you believe that GW invaded Iraq out of the goodness of his heart to prevent an escalation of fundamentalist influence in the region, and he acted in good faith to the intelligence at the time, then even though some of the charges may stick, a jury is going to be hard to convince about his motives.

Addendum:
"Disliking the leader of another country" is not a legitimate reason for invading a country and killing thousands in the process. By the same logic, France would have had legitimacy in dropping a nuclear bomb on Washington during the past 4 years. It is absolutely clear that there was no danger from Iraq before the invasion, as Colin Powell confirmed in 2001 while Iraq was under sanctions, before the neocons got their claws into him.

Feb 24th 2001: "Asked about the sanctions placed on Iraq, which were then under review at the Security Council, Powell said the measures were working. In fact, he added, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

As for those who, after all these years and focus on the debate, still cling to the delusion about the existence of WMDs.....Don't you think the neo cons would scream and shout it from the rooftops if they had even a tiny shred of proof ? Republicans are so gullible, they probably still think America is going through a property boom.

Answer 4

During his reign, of several decades, Saddam Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against civilians and in the Iran-Iraq War.

Following the 1991 Gulf War he also engaged in a decade-long confrontation with the United Nations and its weapons inspectors, which ended in the 2003 invasion by the United States.

The United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD throughout the 1990s in spite of persistent Iraqi obstruction. Washington withdrew weapons inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox, which further degraded Iraq's WMD capability.

The United States and the UK, along with many intelligence experts, asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he must be prevented from building any more.

Inspections restarted in 2002, but hadn't turned up any evidence of ongoing programs when the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in March 2003.

Now ... sounds to me like there WERE weapons present...however, given the amount of time it took to get our troops in Iraq...they had sufficient time to destroy or move them to other locations.

Answer 5

How have you ever not observed the multitude who've committed their lives to looking some sign that Bush would have performed some thing unlawful in some unspecified time interior the destiny save FAILING to discover something? Your link finally ends up in an internet site crammed with somewhat some thoughts. i assume you advise to show-out the gitmo element. enable me assist you with some grade-college point civics that form of a hundred% of Democrats in a roundabout way look to have ignored: > Soldier/combatant does not in many circumstances equivalent criminal > war does not in many circumstances equivalent crime > CRIMINALS get charged and tried. > combatants get held without expenses collectively as hostilities are ongoing. there is rarely any assumption they have "performed something incorrect;" they're detained to sidestep them returning to combat. by capacity of ways, Colonel Wilkerson is a leftist ACTIVIST and has actually accused HIMSELF of lacking credibility. particular, I understand such "supplies" ARE the very ultimate your edge has to grant and that i think for you.

Answer 6

With the intelligence that Bush was presented with and Saddam's history of using Chemical Weapons, the use of military force was warranted. Bush has committed no crime. EDIT: This is a question of opinion and not supported by fact. So my opinion is that if the people in these countries would rise up and protect their rights against oppressive governments, and those that commit Genocide against their own people, then the US would have no need to be involved. Many countries ask for military help from the US, then cry about it when the military starts killing people that are trying to kill them. The US should cut off all financial aid and military aid, let countries fight their own battles. Then what would be the world opinion?

Answer 7

According to reports released by the Israeli secret service, there were WMD in Iraq, but they were removed or destroyed when it looked like America was going to invade. The Israeli's told the US secret service that the WMD were no longer in Iraq before the invasion, but the US government decided to invade anyway.

Answer 8

First your opinion that he knew there were no WMDs is just that, an opinion.
Second, he should be given a medal for at least attempting to allow tens of millions more people to live in freedom rather than under oppressive dictatorships.
Many libs like Hilary and Dennis Koochyitch should be tried for treason. If major players acted like them during WWII we would have lost that war. Act like Americans rather than members of a party that will do anything to secure their own power. It is pathetic.

Answer 9

Hmm, the UN passed two resolutions allowing the use of force, and the US Congress passed a bill allowing the C in C the ability to take military action against Hussein.

Grow up, stop listening to the looney left and MoveOn with your life.

Answer 10

Intelligence that he received was faulty - My problem is that he didn't leave - But crimes against humanity is a more proper accusation for Saddam, while Bush seems to just be a poor leader. I would say no, but that he needs to be gone. I would've supported an impeachment.

Answer 11

Hi Dear

George W. Bush and his allies are serious criminals who should be punished for their crimes they know what am talking about. These guys have made serious crimes in the past and now, due to the fact that America is a super power the world has ignored all that. Bin laden will continue bombing the world because of Bush and all his allies innocent people are dying in Iraq because of them. Bush, Bin laden and his allies should remember that there time is near because God exist.