George W. Bush, war criminal

[Debunker]

Populism does not mean that one is right.
One of the flaws of Democracy.

(And honest criticism is not hate, it is honesty.)

That is correct and that is what we are trying to get out of the Bush haters.

 

[Debunker]

An opinion of this thread.
A pair of tag teaming trolls derailing an informed debate.

nooc

Being the Christian you are, you are speaking of the usual suspects of liberal that float around on the forum and team up on all the Conservatives, don't you?

 

[Debunker]

The question is; if Jesus ran for president as a Republican, would any Republicans vote for him?

Sure, we would.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Sure, we would.

I think he would probably meet the same end as Gandhi and King, a bullet. Who in America is going to tolerate all that talk of how blessed the poor are and the rich are going to Hell. He would sure put a damper on all that military spending.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Being the Christian you are, you are speaking of the usual suspects of liberal that float around on the forum and team up on all the Conservatives, don't you?

Any suggestion that my politics of the rule of Law, social justice, individual rights, equitable economic policies, sustainable industry etc have anything to do with my Christianity is wholly warranted.
　
I think that Christians whose politics are oriented towards the prosecution of wars to the advantage of a minority social and economic ruling elite have not only missed the teachings of Jesus but have missed the lessons of history.
　
But all religion and history aside, is the President above the law?

 

[Debunker]

The OP poses the question as to whether or not GWB is a war criminal.
　
There appears to be a considerable body of evidence indicating that he is; and several well respected and competent judiciaries world wide agree that there is a case to be answered.
　
The International Conventions and Agreements under which he would be charged overseas have been signed and ratified by the US and therefore have all the force of US domestic laws.
So there is no need that he be extradited, or rendered, to another jurisdiction.
　
The question, from my pov, is whether or not a US President is answerable to Law or is he, like the monarchs of old, above the Law.
　
GWB does not have to be responsible for millions of deaths to be a criminal.
The implication of your suggestion that millions of deaths are required to meet the standard of criminality, and not the 100s of thousands that have been documented, is untrue.
　

The answer is very simple. The charges are false. Only extreme liberals pay these charges any attention. It is not criminal to carry out the policies of Congress ans/or the UN mandates. Get a life. If Germany had won WWII, who do you think would have been tried for war Crimes, Bush won in the Middle East and we hung Saddam. The losers are always found guilty. Get a grip, GWB is not going to be tried regardless how many courts you appeal to. We the people just ignore your guff.

 

[Genuine Realist]

The OP poses the question as to whether or not GWB is a war criminal.
　
There appears to be a considerable body of evidence indicating that he is; and several well respected and competent judiciaries world wide agree that there is a case to be answered.
　
The International Conventions and Agreements under which he would be charged overseas have been signed and ratified by the US and therefore have all the force of US domestic laws.
So there is no need that he be extradited, or rendered, to another jurisdiction.
　
The question, from my pov, is whether or not a US President is answerable to Law or is he, like the monarchs of old, above the Law.
　
GWB does not have to be responsible for millions of deaths to be a criminal.
The implication of your suggestion that millions of deaths are required to meet the standard of criminality, and not the 100s of thousands that have been documented, is untrue.
　

He isn't a war criminal, any more than any other head of state. The international 'law' involved is not law at all. The spokespersons are as highly politicized as any in the world. To be technically legal with you, an unanswered question under the UN Charter is whether an independent resolution is required for action after a breach of a Security Council resolution, or whether any member state can take action. It's unsettled.

But to address the larger question, since when did it become immoral or criminal to overthrow a tyrant? I actually opposed the war, at the time, fearing a human disaster if WMD were used. But a point I made to friends who were more strident is that lives can be lost by inaction as well as action. Saddam Hussein was an ogre; he had two psychotic sons ready to follow him; and the price he exacted from the Iraqi people was not a small one. So there is a certain self-righteousness to all this denunciation.

The Swiss, famous for being a repository of stolen Jewish art and other Nazi collaboration, would do better to clean their own house.

 

[Debunker]

I think he would probably meet the same end as Gandhi and King, a bullet. Who in America is going to tolerate all that talk of how blessed the poor are and the rich are going to Hell. He would sure put a damper on all that military spending.

I don't think so but the former USSR surely wished you fellows were around to stop Reagan and his military spending. Reagan defeated that evil empire without one shot. What a man.

The terrorist and radical Muslims agree with you. You can get them to support your liberal ideas. They are hoping the USA disarms too.

 

[Debunker]

Any suggestion that my politics of the rule of Law, social justice, individual rights, equitable economic policies, sustainable industry etc have anything to do with my Christianity is wholly warranted.
　
I think that Christians whose politics are oriented towards the prosecution of wars to the advantage of a minority social and economic ruling elite have not only missed the teachings of Jesus but have missed the lessons of history.
　
But all religion and history aside, is the President above the law?

All I know is that Christ said "Render unto Caesar..." and I think he mean what he said, don't you?

 

[Jacksnyte]

All I know is that Christ said "Render unto Caesar..." and I think he mean what he said, don't you?

Yes, and Ceasar was ruling an empire! So are you admitting that the USA is acting more like an empire than it is like the democratic republic it was meant to be?

 

[Debunker]

Yes, and Ceasar was ruling an empire! So are you admitting that the USA is acting more like an empire than it is like the democratic republic it was meant to be?

We the people admit nothing to the disciples of hate.

 

[dmgdnooc]

The answer is very simple. The charges are false. Only extreme liberals pay these charges any attention. It is not criminal to carry out the policies of Congress ans/or the UN mandates. Get a life. If Germany had won WWII, who do you think would have been tried for war Crimes, Bush won in the Middle East and we hung Saddam. The losers are always found guilty. Get a grip, GWB is not going to be tried regardless how many courts you appeal to. We the people just ignore your guff.

I think that, by design, you are evading the point.
　
A person brought in to court to stand trial is not a criminal, he is deemed to be an innocent man facing a charge, under Law, of this or that breach of Law.
And a charge, under Law, is not decided by popular consent.
We, the people, have constituted Courts of Law to avoid the possibility of a person being tried in the, so called, Court of Public Opinion.
That you make an appeal to Public Opinion as a proof of innocence is astounding, Public Opinion is, in the main, 'guff'.
And false charges have to be answered in court as well as the true.
　
If Germany had won WWII and War Crimes trials had been pursued against the Allied leaders that would have by no means diminished the criminality of Germany's leaders, they would merely have never been required to answer for their actions.
This is the course that you propose should be followed re GWB. That he be treated as the German leaders would have treated themselves if Germany had won WWII.
You display a dismal understanding of Justice; might is always right in your world and whatever can be got away with at the point of a gun is fair spoils of war.
　
Now, I agree that GWB will not be tried in the US, not because there is no case to be answered but because he, his position there, is above the Law.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

He isn't a war criminal, any more than any other head of state.

Holy crap that's awful ethics.

 

[Debunker]

I think that, by design, you are evading the point.
　
A person brought in to court to stand trial is not a criminal, he is deemed to be an innocent man facing a charge, under Law, of this or that breach of Law.
And a charge, under Law, is not decided by popular consent.
We, the people, have constituted Courts of Law to avoid the possibility of a person being tried in the, so called, Court of Public Opinion.
That you make an appeal to Public Opinion as a proof of innocence is astounding, Public Opinion is, in the main, 'guff'.
And false charges have to be answered in court as well as the true.
　
If Germany had won WWII and War Crimes trials had been pursued against the Allied leaders that would have by no means diminished the criminality of Germany's leaders, they would merely have never been required to answer for their actions.
This is the course that you propose should be followed re GWB. That he be treated as the German leaders would have treated themselves if Germany had won WWII.
You display a dismal understanding of Justice; might is always right in your world and whatever can be got away with at the point of a gun is fair spoils of war.
　
Now, I agree that GWB will not be tried in the US, not because there is no case to be answered but because he, his position there, is above the Law.

I agree that you guys are so full of hate because the free people of the world will not listen to your liberal guff. The terrorist will listen and the enemies of democracy love to hear your rants. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water whether your elitist group of haters like it or not. You need to go to Iran if you want the type of justice you are seeking. They try people there for treason for just walking on the wrong path near their border.
You guys are just as extreme in your unrighteous persecution of GWB. It is not right to persecute Bush as you do and allow the guilty to go free.

It is so obvious that your hate for Bush began long before 9/11 and that this war crime thing is just an excuse to win back the election of 2000. It is so apparent and you religious moralist should be ashamed to be part of this scandalized and un-Christian behavior. That's right, I charge you with heresy and apostrophized behavior. GWB did his duty to God and his country and you should be afraid to touch him.

 

[Genuine Realist]

I think that, by design, you are evading the point.
　
A person brought in to court to stand trial is not a criminal, he is deemed to be an innocent man facing a charge, under Law, of this or that breach of Law.
And a charge, under Law, is not decided by popular consent.
We, the people, have constituted Courts of Law to avoid the possibility of a person being tried in the, so called, Court of Public Opinion.
That you make an appeal to Public Opinion as a proof of innocence is astounding, Public Opinion is, in the main, 'guff'.
And false charges have to be answered in court as well as the true.
　
If Germany had won WWII and War Crimes trials had been pursued against the Allied leaders that would have by no means diminished the criminality of Germany's leaders, they would merely have never been required to answer for their actions.
This is the course that you propose should be followed re GWB. That he be treated as the German leaders would have treated themselves if Germany had won WWII.
You display a dismal understanding of Justice; might is always right in your world and whatever can be got away with at the point of a gun is fair spoils of war.
　
Now, I agree that GWB will not be tried in the US, not because there is no case to be answered but because he, his position there, is above the Law.

You are not the People - nor does morality necessarily follow the law. I am not going to get into long sources here, but the legality of the Iraqi War is extremely debatable. You can make good arguments on both sides.

Bush has to answer to a higher authority. Was it the right thing to do? Was it a good thing to do? That also is not an easy question. The True Believers on this site forget that Saddam was an ogre, and exacted a price from the Iraqi people every day and every hour. Nice orderly violence, of the type that the royalists on this board approve. Whether you are aware of it or not, the real objection of most Bush opponents is not to the violence, but the disorder - for Saddam was even more violent, but within the mechanism of the state.

I'll pose you a different question. During the 90's, Milosevic announced ethnic cleansing on the Balkan peninsula. After all that had happened in the 20th Century, this was a scandal, and dangerous. But the European nations, despite all the prodding of Thacher, did absolutely nothing. None of the heads of the various states are ever going to be charged by some Swiss activist with crimes - but I'd suggest they behaved with considerably less morality than Bush.

I hope you have noticed the tenor of my posts. I am not so much making the case for Bush - that remains open - but the case against the reflexive True Believers and their jumble of half-digested facts, semi-articulated theories, and raw hatred.

 

[Bismillah]

Everyone knows the intelligence was flawed. For that, Bush is responsible.

What do you mean the "intelligence" was flawed? All factors clearly pointed away from the idea that Iraq possessed WMDs.

The Bush administration used as a pretext lies, deceit, and the word of a conman who had no real connection with the Djer al Nadaf and declared Saddam to be housing biological weapons. Even AFTER weapons inspectors voided such a possibility the White House did not retract its statements and used "curveball's" testimony as a major prop for their campaign of disinformation.

It is quite disgusting to look at the manner in which George Bush was prepared to invade Iraq, before 9/11, and manipulated and rejected the evidence that was presented to him.

In particular, Wilson and Plume are suspect. Valerie Plume was not outed by the Bush people, but by Richard Armitage, a State Department under-Secretary who opposed Bush policies. You'd never know that by the way they talk.

I could care less about Valerie's "outing". What is of considerably more importance, and relevance, is the fact that George Bush used the pretext of Saddam supposedly acquiring Uranium from the Nigerians. Even when the CIA director struck down such a reference in a prior Presidential speech, G.W then incorporated the refrence in his State of the Union. A clear manipulation of a piece of "intelligence" that was readily known and acknowledged to be false.

Blix was a lot more certain AFTER the invasion, when the Alliance had done its investigations. I have no use for him.

It hardly matters about his gaining resolve in his earlier statements, you again are diverting the subject from the real issue at hand. Bush planned on using Saddam's rejection of weapons inspectors as a valid casus belli for declaring war on Iraq. When Saddam aquiesced to these demands the weapons inspectors maintained that there was NO presence of any such supposed weapons.

At the least they argued for more time, whereas the White House made it quite clear that they did not wish to carry on the investigations. They took advantage of haste and made the move to go to war before further research would resoundingly reject their bleated appeals of Saddam possessing WMDS.

George Bush had a very real grasp on the realities in Iraq, he chose to initiate a war that prolonged the inhumane suffering of the Iraqi people from the last decade into the next one.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I used to wish that he would not be arrested, and now I hope to God that he does.

Don't hold your breath Nate, you will turn as blue as mball.

 

[Quagmire]

Sure, we would.

Even if Rush told you not to?

We the people admit nothing to the disciples of hate.

Just how many "We the people" are in there with you anyway?

 

[Genuine Realist]

Holy crap that's awful ethics.

You haven't answered a single argument or done anything more than recite your Apostle's Creed all day long. Let us pray . . .

 

[dmgdnooc]

He isn't a war criminal, any more than any other head of state. The international 'law' involved is not law at all. The spokespersons are as highly politicized as any in the world. To be technically legal with you, an unanswered question under the UN Charter is whether an independent resolution is required for action after a breach of a Security Council resolution, or whether any member state can take action. It's unsettled.

But to address the larger question, since when did it become immoral or criminal to overthrow a tyrant? I actually opposed the war, at the time, fearing a human disaster if WMD were used. But a point I made to friends who were more strident is that lives can be lost by inaction as well as action. Saddam Hussein was an ogre; he had two psychotic sons ready to follow him; and the price he exacted from the Iraqi people was not a small one. So there is a certain self-righteousness to all this denunciation.

The Swiss, famous for being a repository of stolen Jewish art and other Nazi collaboration, would do better to clean their own house.

I do not know if GWB is a war criminal or not. And neither do you.
　
I am well aware that all the possible charges, and there are a number of them, can all be defended by this or that line of argument.
My pov is that all those arguments should be made in a duly constituted and competent legal arena.
　
The larger question is not one of morality, if it were then successive US administrations would have multiple cases to answer (including the morality of overthrowing democratic governments and putting, and keeping, in their place vicious dictators, murderers and drug dealers).
The only question, from my pov, is legality.
　
No one mourns the departure of Saddam and his sons from this world, not that I am aware of anyway.
It is the children who lost life and limb, their mothers and fathers (non-combatants) killed, maimed, abducted from the streets and raped and tortured under US supervision, things like that that are being mourned.
　
If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to ad hominem the Swiss legal system based on the Swiss' relationship with Nazi Germany. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/us/12holocaust.html