He is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention as well as several other treaties and laws. When challenged on the issue of breaking the law, he stated "we don't agree", which is a defense that would never work in a court of law.
2007-11-03 06:41:34 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sentinel: Spoken like a true Republikkkan. Avoid the question and call names. No wonder we are so loved and admired around the world.
2007-11-03 06:50:09 · update #1
Specifics: Torture, rendition, indefinite imprisonment without recourse, charges, or access to legal counsel. Attacking another nation without justifiable cause. Come on folks, don't you read the news?
2007-11-03 07:02:32 · update #2
He probably should, but never will be tried. He has been able to work around the law. I mean look at the Patriot Act, nobody ever read this thing before signing it in to law. Bush and the gang, made sure when they wrote it, that it would never be read and congress would just pass it.
2007-11-03 06:48:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Wow, you're clever with the kkk reference. Anyway, cite the specific "war crimes" and maybe you'll get intelligent answers. If you mean the Iraq war, force was authorized by Congress and was the threat issued in 20+ U.N. resolutions against Saddam and Iraq that were ignored and broken. Even though the Security Council failed to back up their own threats, that doesn't make our doing so a war crime.
Not sure if you understand what war crimes are. To cite your examples:
1. Attacking a country without cause. We had plenty of cause. Ignore the U.N. resolutions because they don't fit your simplistic and naive world view, but there was plenty of cause.
2. Indefinite imprisonment. Even if they were pow's instead of unlawful combatants, the Geneva Convention allows imprisonment. They aren't entitled to the rights of P.O.W.s since they don't wear uniforms and hide amongst the civilian population (which, by the way, IS a war crime).
3. Rendition (did you get that from the movie?). Rendition was practiced by the Clinton administration starting in 1995. It wasn't a war crime then, isn't now. You may find it morally repugnant, but it's not a crime.
4. Torture. Yes, some unpleasant things have been done to people and yes, some interogators go too far, but I have yet to see rock solid proof that the U.S. government has engaged in a form of torture that would rise to the level of a war crime. We aren't running extermination camps like in WW2 germany or even Saddam's own prisons of torture. Variating heat and cold, sleep deprivation and causing disorientation is not a war crime.
As for the terrorists, I can cite dozens of war crimes, including beheading, which by itself violates at least 3 provisions. They directly attack civilians, they kill surrendered combatants, take hostages and commit cold blooded murder. All war crimes. You're accusing the wrong side.
2007-11-03 06:56:44 · answer #2 · answered by Jay 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nixon got caught and was charge regardless of the attempts he made to challenge the ability to investigate him. If the Congress really felt that violations should be made against President Bush they too would make it happen as it did with Nixon. They won't they are getting far too much milage out of false claims and lip service rather than have the truth told. Also, they cannot charge him with any war crimes. The reason why is because the War Powers Act deligated authority to the President not responsiblity. The President was given the congressional powers by Congress to protect this country, they could take it back at anytime. They won't because they are still responsible that is part of this countries leadership policies "You can deligate authority but not responsibility". They too would have to face the same charges.
2007-11-03 06:50:24 · answer #3 · answered by rance42 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The geneva convention doesn't apply to terrorists since they have not agreed to it. The only parties that have actually violated any of the agreements would be the insurgents, since they don't wear uniforms, target civilians, use civilians has shields, kill their prisoners, etc etc etc. You can't cite a specific example of Bush violating the Geneva convention, which indicates you're not really serious about it, anyway.
------
There is no proof the U.S. conducting torture, it's Al Qaeda propaganda that has been proliferated by the liberals. Abu Graib (though mild by Al Qaeda standards) was not authorized by the government, and other charges, such as inadequate air conditioning, although perhaps true are not recognized as torture by the Geneva convention. Imprisonment of combatants without charges, lack of legal council, rendition, etc. also are not conditions of the Geneva convention.
2007-11-03 06:52:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Now come on! all and sundry knows the individuals are the solid adult adult males -- this is different from criminal movements, or oppression, or wars of profession, or corruption, or neglecting their electorate, or bankrupting the country they're "working" variations THAT. What are you, some sorta pinko?
2016-11-10 03:53:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who cares what the rest of the world thinks?
Where in the constitution does it say that we need to have respect from other nations?
War crimes?
Bring it on!
Just one more waste of time.
2007-11-03 06:56:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Exactly how has he violated the Geneva Conventions? You do realize that the GC doesn't mention terrorists?
2007-11-03 06:48:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes!! No one is above the law.
2007-11-03 15:36:00 · answer #8 · answered by marlene50 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only a Communist, Liberal Socialist, the ACLU, American Haters, or Extreme Left Democrat would answer yes to this stupid question!
2007-11-03 06:48:24 · answer #9 · answered by Sentinel 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Paraguay never extradited its Nazi war criminals to any country in the past.
2007-11-03 06:47:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋