George W. Bush, war criminal

[Genuine Realist]

I think that the legality of GWB's actions could be determined by a competent legal authority trying the case.
　
I do not accept that his motives are clear, too much mis-information and even downright lies issued from his office in regards the motives for these actions.
　
It may be that he was the victim of bad intelligence.
I could certainly accept almost anything about the CIA; who, with all the vast resources at the Agency's disposal firmly fixed upon the USSR, were blissfully unaware of its immanent demise.
　
You accept that GWB has a good heart, but I would say that only God knows the heart.
And my lifelong observations lead me to conclude that politicians are, in the main, professional liars.
My only further qualification on that would be that some are better liars than others.

The problem is not only does a competent legal authority not exist, neither does the law in question.

To be specific, in a way that many of the other posters have not, Iraq wasn't just another country. It had waged aggressive war, and was the subject of a number of resolutions passed by the UN in the 90's, and of course in late 2002. Just what the effect of these were, and what exactly the right to enforce, no one knows. Domestic law is built up on precedent and tradition, with deep cultural roots. That just doesn't exist here.

The moral perspective is hard, but not nearly as blurry. Iraq was not a consensual government. Saddam built his totalitarian regime on murder and repression. His regime was despotic - and I don't think anyone thinks its immoral to overthrow a despot. The 64 dollar question is what the human cost is. You can't approve a 'Yojimbo' situation, in which the third party brings law and order but everyone is dead.

Bringing this analysis to bear on Iraq, the actual overthrow of the regime was accomplished pretty quickly, a matter of weeks with minimal casualties. It is hard to believe that the human cost wasn't less than Saddam would have exacted from the beleaguered Iraqi public over extended time.

The massive casualties came from the Iraqi insurgency. But this was resistance, not to the US invasion, but to the consensual government that the US sponsored. Bush and Rumsfeld bear a heavy responsibility for not foreseeing this reaction from the Iraqi fascist (sic) faction. But the murderers were the insurgents. It goes on to this day, and I don't believe anyone sees this as anything but repulsive criminality. Call it by its correct name - street fascism,

Attributing the massive street violence to Bush is like saying Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the Ku Klux Klan. (Bush is obviously no Lincoln, but his critics sound surprisingly like the mewling reactionaries of the Civil War.)

All of this reasoning is, of course, lost on most of the posters on this topic. They begin with the notion that Bush Is Evil, and reason backwards from that.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Against, or for?

 

[Genuine Realist]

Against, or for?

Against, LOL.

More things in heaven and earth, dontcha know?

 

[dmgdnooc]

But most liberals as well as others are at peace with what GWB did and it is only the few here on this forum that can't forgive Bush for 2000 election. This forum is great for discussion but these particular liberal are a very small minority out there in the real political world. Here, IMO, they seem bigger than life but other places they represent the very extreme and the people of the USA do ignore them for the most part. You not living here, you would not know this fact but on the other hand, they do not still know this. The liberals are not usually in power here and they do over estimate their influence. They talk a good game but they just do not produce.

You take the view that if GWB has been tried in the US Media's Court of Public Opinion then there is no need for any legal process at all.
That opinion does not appeal to me.
It holds little appeal to the Swiss either and to many other signatory States of the Treaty on Torture, and to the many International organisations that are concerned with this aspect of Human Rights.
　
There are International Courts duly convened to decide these matters and a good deal of precedent and case law has accumulated over the years.
It is my opinion that the US should take the lead in the matter of GWB, it is primarily a US responsibility, and avoid the embarrassment of him being arrested and tried in another jurisdiction, as General Pinochet and others have been.
　
I think it is an error of hubris, and of fact, for the US to assume that these charges are a matter of domestic concern only.
These matters are not political in nature, despite your continual references to politics, they are a matter of established and International Law.
Of whether of not even the President is subject to Law, both domestic and international.

 

[dmgdnooc]

The problem is not only does a competent legal authority not exist, neither does the law in question.

To be specific, in a way that many of the other posters have not, Iraq wasn't just another country. It had waged aggressive war, and was the subject of a number of resolutions passed by the UN in the 90's, and of course in late 2002. Just what the effect of these were, and what exactly the right to enforce, no one knows. Domestic law is built up on precedent and tradition, with deep cultural roots. That just doesn't exist here.

The moral perspective is hard, but not nearly as blurry. Iraq was not a consensual government. Saddam built his totalitarian regime on murder and repression. His regime was despotic - and I don't think anyone thinks its immoral to overthrow a despot. The 64 dollar question is what the human cost is. You can't approve a 'Yojimbo' situation, in which the third party brings law and order but everyone is dead.

Bringing this analysis to bear on Iraq, the actual overthrow of the regime was accomplished pretty quickly, a matter of weeks with minimal casualties. It is hard to believe that the human cost wasn't less than Saddam would have exacted from the beleaguered Iraqi public over extended time.

The massive casualties came from the Iraqi insurgency. But this was resistance, not to the US invasion, but to the consensual government that the US sponsored. Bush and Rumsfeld bear a heavy responsibility for not foreseeing this reaction from the Iraqi fascist (sic) faction. But the murderers were the insurgents. It goes on to this day, and I don't believe anyone sees this as anything but repulsive criminality. Call it by its correct name - street fascism,

Attributing the massive street violence to Bush is like saying Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the Ku Klux Klan. (Bush is obviously no Lincoln, but his critics sound surprisingly like the mewling reactionaries of the Civil War.)

All of this reasoning is, of course, lost on most of the posters on this topic. They begin with the notion that Bush Is Evil, and reason backwards from that.

There are duly convened International Courts and Tribunals whose function is to hear cases of this very nature.
They are the legacy of the Nuremberg Trials and there is a good deal of precedent and case law that has accumulated over the years to illuminate the well established international laws that are considered there.
A duly signed and ratified International agreement has all the effect, in the US, of domestic law.
It is approved by the Congress, Senate and the President.
　
The 'shock and awe' campaign was directed at Iraqi society; which is itself a breach of the laws governing warfare as defined by the Geneva Convention.
　
The moral perspective is not hard.
Morality is concerned with what one does, why and when; not with what another does.
The regime had nothing to do with the invasion.
If Saddam had left office, prior to the invasion, and another Baathist had taken over then the US conditions would have been satisfied.
The invasion was undertaken because of the supposed presence of WMD's and the fabricated links of Saddam with Al Qaeda.
The fact that the reasons for the invasion were changed indicates to me that the mission was initially undertaken for the wrong reasons.
And further indicates that all the reasons given are not the real, the truthful, reasons.
　
If an invader has the stated aim of causing 'massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large' of employing its military capability 'against society and its values'. And takes pains to destroy electricity production, water and sewage facilities, the means of food distribution etc and then disables the native security forces while providing no domestic security force of its own.
Then I think that the invader must, of necessity, share in the responsibility of the ensuing chaos that will rampage through that society.
But from your pov its the fault of the Iraqis.
　
My Country, right or wrong, is always Right; is a sentiment driven opinion to which I do not ascribe.

 

[LuisDantas]

Against, LOL.

More things in heaven and earth, dontcha know?

I'm serious. You really look far more for than against, dontc'ha see?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Let me ask a question if I may. Is there any Bush haters here that don't want a one world government?

 

[LuisDantas]

So you see some relation?

 

[Reverend Rick]

So you see some relation?

I believe I do. I just wanted to see if it is accurate.

 

[sandandfoam]

Let me ask a question if I may. Is there any Bush haters here that don't want a one world government?

I don't.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Let me ask a question if I may. Is there any Bush haters here that don't want a one world government?

I'm not a 'Bush hater' and the only 'one world government' I would advocate would be under Christ at his return.
　
However, I do think that International agreements and Laws are necessary.
And that honoring them is essential.
A contract is a contract is a contract from my pov, and its honored even when it hurts.

 

[Bismillah]

Genuine Realist: Feel free to gravitate to the facts when you're ready.

Let me ask a question if I may. Is there any Bush haters here that don't want a one world government?

Why would I support a one world government.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Let me ask a question if I may. Is there any Bush haters here that don't want a one world government?

I want a one world government, but that has nothing to do with hating Bush. I don't like Bush because his policies were moronic and set America back fifty years. Not to mention he favors government mandated torture.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Let me ask a question if I may. Is there any Bush haters here that don't want a one world government?

I don't hate Bush. I do however think he was one of the worst US Presidents in history.

And what dissenting poster on here has advocated a "One World Government"? (Edit: other than the post above)
I thought we were discussing whether or not Bush committed crimes.

 

[tumbleweed41]

As I said to Dantas, why doesn't the fact that two different administrations feel the provisions of the Act are useful and necessary cause you to revise YOUR opinion? Or at least think about reasons?

My opinion is not revised.
The Patriot Act is a bane on our Constitution.
Bush pushed it, and was backed by reactionaries, both Dem and Repub.
Obama supports it. For this I hold him accountable.

 

[LuisDantas]

Tumbleweed41 speaks for me in this regard.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Let me ask a question if I may. Is there any Bush haters here that don't want a one world government?

Nope. I'd like to see senseless war and oppressive spending gone.

 

[tumbleweed41]

A few post back, the Realist wrote a response to the P.Act. I accept what he said. Go back there, read it, and be educated.

I read it.
His response was basically that bad laws morph into better laws through the courts.
I find this to be disingenuous and a poor excuse for allow legislation that is counter to the core fundamentals of our Bill of Rights.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I thought we were discussing whether or not Bush committed crimes.

Nah, we're discussing the fact that he is one.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't think you can bully him out of his position. He is too knowledgeable to fall for that old trick. You are going to have to use rational thought before he shows contempt for it. He can not show contempt for what you have not used. Take it from me, an objective observer, he has won this debate by default. By the way, did you ever take time to explain how we should have responded to the 9/11 misunderstanding with those harmless terrorist?

For one thing, you're not an objective observer.

Secondly, I'm not bullying him but merely pointing out that his use of personal attacks -namely, attacks on my faith which he made explicitly clear in two posts - only embarrasses him. Maybe not in your eyes, but like I said, you are certainly not an objective observer.

Third, his views are *obviously* not founded from reason because he indulges in scores of logical fallacies, to which both of you are completely oblivious.

Furthermore, unlike both of you, my positions are reasonable and based on fact.

And I don't give a rat's *** if either of you change your minds. I'm not trying to do that, and I'm not trying to win an argument with either of you, because such an attempt would be useless.