2007-09-25 08:59:54 · 22 answers · asked by Kalidas 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No -- because that does not fall within the federal "war crimes" statute -- 18 USC 2441. Because the actions were pursuant to a legal authorization for the use of military force, approved by Congress, he cannot be held accountable for those actions.
And the US is not a signatory the the International Criminal Court -- so, to hold Bush accountable, he would need to be kidnapped by some other country and dragged before the tribunal -- something no other country is going to do.
The US Supreme Court has confirmed that Bush has violated 18 USC 2441 in other areas, meaning he has committed war crimes as defined under federal law -- but those actions were not based on the US invasion or occupation of Iraq.
2007-09-25 09:04:50 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Nope. The goofy people of Iraq killed most of those civilians themselves. With no help from Bush. Try them.
2007-09-25 15:42:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The deaths in Iraq can safely be laid at the feet of Syria and Iran and the Saudis. Our military has not been killing innocent civilians. The "insurgents" have been killing innocents to suit their own purposes. If you can't see that, you aren't terribly bright.
2007-09-25 09:29:26 · answer #3 · answered by greengo 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
No i think the Terrorists should be tried as war criminals for killing innocent Iraqis.
2007-09-25 14:28:14 · answer #4 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
1) That number (600,000) is completely fictional. If you read the original article that stated it, they admit it is made-up.
2) The U.S. military has killed very few civilians. More than 95% of civilian casualties are the result of terrorist attacks aimed at civilians.
Please grow up and get an education.
2007-09-25 09:07:16 · answer #5 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
If you can prove he killed 600,000 innocent civilians in Iraq, yep, he should be.
If many civilians have been killed by civil war, terrorists, and at times, collateral damage due to war...then no, he should not be tried as a war criminal.
2007-09-25 09:04:37 · answer #6 · answered by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
opps? that's what happens whilst presidents get elected in case you learn background you may see that many presidents have been to blame of breaking their campaign can provide FDR promised the american human beings *No American will might desire to combat in a worldwide conflict whilst he replaced into president* Wilson promised the comparable and so did an incredible variety of alternative presidents Obama is purely following the precedent set via previous presidents.. No i don't think of Obama gets to be tried as a conflict criminal...in my opinion i think of on the Gitmo and Afghanistan conflict and cord taping Obama is purely following the desire of the final public of people yet in wellbeing Care Obama isn't following the 70% of the individuals who do not desire the hot Obama wellbeing Care kit.. maximum of what Obama is doing is appropriate..yet in wellbeing care and the undesirable financial forecast.. there will be 10 to fifteen extra years of undesirable financial growth for the u . s . and the final public of the worldwide
2016-11-06 08:49:42 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yep. all the top honchos bush administration should...including some american generals....George Tenet...Condi Rice, Colin Powell, etc... I would even throw in members of congress who knew of lies to go to war but said they could not speak out due to being sworn to secrecy.
2007-09-25 10:22:44 · answer #8 · answered by me 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
no and 600,000 were not killed and most of the ones that were killed were killed by terrorist not the military
2007-09-25 13:19:47 · answer #9 · answered by Rusty Shackelferd 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Show proof that those numbers are correct and I will answer your question.
2007-09-25 10:41:24 · answer #10 · answered by hdean45 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋