Poll: Should George Bush be tried for crimes against humanity/war crimes?

[dalek sec]

I think they should do his trial in Iraq so he can get hung on the same gallows as Saddam

This.

Airlock him, it worked for Roslin.

 

[Xaryn Mar]

Hello! I am a regular visitor here, though not so active.
I saw this thread and had to respond to it.
People! seriously! who do you think are those guys overseas the US is fighting with?
its easy to think about them as the poor people, as those innocent people living their poor lives.
Are you THAT blind guys?? those Islamic nations exists way longer then USA, and they have a HUGE amount of natural resources... Then why are they living like this? how come they are not a huge superpower? the way of life in those areas is way different then what you know! That is why they are all living like this! you must understand your enemy and fight them by their rules!!! otherwise you'll have another 9/11 on your hands! and for god sake! Iran developing nuclear power???? do you honestly think they'll keep those bombs in a warehouse??? those bombs WILL get to the hands of terrorists!!! and you sit here and discuss putting a man in prison for trying to stop it! you are so naive!

I am disgusted every time "pacifistic" (i.e. stupidly naive) people talk like this about any war against terrorism, if its the US VS Iraq or Israel VS the Hamas. for the love of god! those terrorists sent a SNIPER not long ago that shot a 3 Y.O girl in a stroller right in front of her parents! using CHILDREN (!!!!) as human shields at gunpoint!!! and you all sit in your nice house and blame the only people who are brave enough to fight them. and yeah! innocent people get hurt! it happens when the enemy uses them as shields! blame the enemy for it!

here is a situation for you: you have a gun, a terrorist armed with an automatic weapon grabs a kid and uses him as a shield as he shoots at you and other innocent people. you shoot him risking injury or death to the child, or watch as the terrorist slaughters everyone around you until finally one of his bullets pierce your own head killing the only man able to resist the slaughter?

what ever! i was just so mad i had to blow off some steam... agree or disagree i don't give a damn... i just hope i wont be alive to see the first NUCLEAR suicide bombing, wiping new york, or Sidney, or London, or what ever city full of naive people...

and i know the topic is about torture... and i fully support torturing terrorists... and if a relative of yours should ever find himself in an exploding bus, or in the path of a missile, or in front of a sniper rifle, you'll think the same way...

allowing Iran to develop nuclear capabilities... how STUPID a man has to be to think its a god idea? pfft...

Well then let's just nuke half the worlds population and get it over with, sounds like a good idea? No of course not that would only generate more hatred of us here in the west and that would mean more terror. The only way to fight terror is through education and goodwill. Yes it will take a long time and yes there will be terror actions during that time but if we educate and help enough people to gain a better life they will not become suicide bombers or the like.
This might sound naive but it is the only long term solution that will work (except eradicating humanity, both western and others). War and torture although understandable in some cases doesn't solve long term problems. They only solve them short term and generate more hatred for our children to reap.

my dear friend! why is your life of lesser value then those of the people trying to kill you?
yes, educating them is the only real long term solution, but until they'll be educated, i wont accept the fact that there will be terrorist bombings! it is them that should die attempting to kill us, and not the other way around. and that should be achieved in any means necessary! it is very sad that innocents die, but given the choice, I'd rather the dead innocent people to be from the other side in the conflict. and you think the same as me! you just think its not "noble" of you to admit it! choose now and choose fast: a terrorist is about to launch a home made rocket at you neighborhood, blow his house killing him and his innocent family or wait and let him launch killing your next door neighbor and his family? well, for me its simple. and i am deeply sorry for the innocent casualties. (and i assure you he will not be that sorry if this was the other way around)

oh, and one more thing, torture works perfectly. i bet if i tie you to a chair and pull those torture techniques i can get from you whatever i want. so whoever it was that thinks that in all this time investigators got nothing useful through torture... well... that's a whole new kind of damaged reality perception i haven't seen yet...

Any means necessary makes us just like them and I for one will not hope that we sink that low. I know that I would kill the terrorist if he threatened me, my family and my friends (and yes please call me a hypocrite, but I prefer to not use violence when other methods are available).

Yes you would get anything you wanted due to torture and that is why it fails, because then one tortured would do anything to make you stop, even lie and give up his family, friends etc.
You can never be certain that what information you get from torture will be correct and not misleading.
Besides torture is one of the things we try to make them stop doing since it is inhumane and against all international treaties and laws.
I pity you if you think that torture and genocide would solve the worlds problems (not that I haven't had the same thoughts from time to time, I just know that it will not work).

 

[twistedshadows]

He probably should be prosecuted, but more than likely never will be.

 

[twistedshadows]

Or we could just throw another shoe at him and call it a day.

And hold him still to make sure he doesn't use his ducking skills this time?

 

[Wounded Melody]

Jesus Christ on a crutch, how old are the people posting here?
Bush should be tried, even KILLED? WTF is wrong with you?
If you think this, then 90% of the world leaders should also be put on trial for what they do every day to their own people and their enemies. And the leaders of the Middle East would be right on top of that list.

 

[Gashad]

As far as the Geneva Conventions go, they DO NOT APPLY.
To be protected by it you MUST, let me repeat that, MUST be a member of an organized and uniformed military of a signatory nation. NONE of the terrorists are either of those. That means the Geneva Conventions were not violated in any of those instances.

The Taliban soldiers were part of the signatory nation Afghanistan, hence they would without a doubt be protected by the Geneva convention. Al Qaida operatives fighting for the Taliban would either be considered civilians or militia combatants, both ways the Geneva convention protects them(but gives them different rights).

2. It was war. In war, people die,
Once again, where do you draw the line of what's good and bad in war?

I would say that one draws the line where it goes against the Geneva convention(and no the Geneva convention does not forbid the killing of soldiers)

 

[asinann]

As far as the Geneva Conventions go, they DO NOT APPLY.
To be protected by it you MUST, let me repeat that, MUST be a member of an organized and uniformed military of a signatory nation. NONE of the terrorists are either of those. That means the Geneva Conventions were not violated in any of those instances.

The Taliban soldiers were part of the signatory nation Afghanistan, hence they would without a doubt be protected by the Geneva convention. Al Qaida operatives fighting for the Taliban would either be considered civilians or militia combatants, both ways the Geneva convention protects them(but gives them different rights).

Good job reading only what you wanted to see.
They weren't part of the UNIFORMED MILITARY of the nation of Afghanistan.
The Taliban might have in reality run Afghanistan at the time, but their soldiers weren't officially part of the nation's military, and therefor get no protection.

The Geneva Conventions would not apply to a group of Americans that decided to jump the border of say, Russia and attack them in any way (and I promise you worse than waterboarding would happen there.)

You don't get protection just by belonging to the nation that signed.

War crimes, right
Whos gonna be super lolintellecultalsurperior on america, fucking france!?
*Fistshakes*
All I'm saying is you have to remeber this, he did what he thought was best for the country
just like Obama is doing now
Completely different, same purpose
And before anyone goes on a haliburton rant, Haliburton was a huge government contracter before the war too, and(gasp) if the government needs something built, Haliburton tends to get the job, seeing as the company is a GOVERNMENT CONTRACTER
I know, its hard to believe
Take everything you hear in the media (All of it! Yes, Fox news as well, I know its hard to believe someone could say that/sarcasm) with a grain of salt, its often overblown
I personally wonder how much longer people will go OMG BUSHES FAULT

Halliburton got a TON of no-bid government contracts right out of the gate in Iraq, not because the government had used them before or any legitimate reason.
They got those contracts because Dick Cheney was on the Halliburton board of directors until his VP run.

 

[Echo3Delta]

I am so worked up by the bile and hatred in this thread that I'm not sure I can think straight right now. But I'm gonna give it a try anyway. The really hard question is where to begin. Ah, the Geneva Convention.

In the famous "Battle of the Bulge" in WWII, several German soldiers dressed in American uniforms in an attempt to infiltrate our front lines. They were discovered, lined up against a wall, and shot. This was all recorded too. Do you know why there was no outcry at the possible violation of the Law of War? Because when a group violates the laws and customs of warfare, they forfeit their protected status. Now unlike most of you, I'm going to show that I'm not blowing smoke out of my ass and cite a source. The following is taken from the Wikipedia entry on the 3rd Geneva Convention (the one that applies to POWs):

"Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
[...]"

These captives do not get POW protection, because they aren't legal military personnel and don't follow laws of war.

With regard to this so-called "torture", again, here are the damn FACTS. The following is an excerpt from a 2002 memo on CIA interrogation techniques describing the procedure of waterboarding:

"In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth? During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths? The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout? You have? informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application."

Torture is generally defined as inflicting severe pain or suffering. I realize that, do to public outcry, the government has banned the use of waterboarding and called it torture. "Severe pain and suffering" is however a subjective term, and I find a practice that inflicts no physical harm, is over quickly, and leaves no injuries afterward to be grossly undeserving of the label of torture.

Furthermore, I can't find any source which claims that the waterboard has been used on more than 10 terrorist operatives. One of whom was 9-11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who, according to an Apr. 20th article in The Guardian, was waterboarded 183 times (Can you think of any other so-called "torture" techniques that can be endured 183 times without serious injury or death?). Among the information obtained during his waterboarding sessions was the identity of Lyman Farris, a would-be terrorist who was found with the necessary equipment and schematics to topple the Brooklyn Bridge. About 100 New Yorkers owe their lives to the waterboard, not to mention the warrantless wiretaps which gave the NSA the right questions to ask. (You can read all about that incident at http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2009/04/27/obamas_anti-american_foreign_policy?page=2 )

Finally, I just don't understand you liberals' thought process. You don't mind Saddam's MASSIVE practices of torture, rape, murder, and general violence (not to mention the thousands of American servicemen who undergo the waterboard in training), but as soon the Republican administration dares to save hundreds if not thousands of lives by making someone think they're drowning without hurting them in any way, you cry for an international investigation into war crimes.

You disgust me.

 

[sonidraw]

This just proves that voters are stupid. Why do we want to spread democracy again? :-/

 

[Mr_spamamam]

1. Beheading is not torture. A beheading is an execution, it only lasts for a short period of time, whereas torture, by definition, lasts for an extended duration
2. Lets put you in a cell, stand you up and keep you in that position for 48 to 72 hours and see if you still dont think its torture.
3. The UN weapons inspectors spent months searching for weapons sites and never found any, intelligence agencies spent millions, possibily billions searching for these weapons of mass distruction and never found a thing. Occams razor dictates that they were never there in the first place

Alright, if we're going to go down this road..

1 - You're right. Which would you prefer? In my humble opinion, I would prefer to stand for two days over having my head slowly cut off by a semi-blunt machete.

2 - If torture was a type of food, we are using baby powder. Do you have any idea what kind of disgusting and inhumane things were done to soldiers during the Vietnam War? Bamboo chutes under fingertips, nails driven through body parts, beatings so bad that heads would cave in, being fed to pigs and dogs, etc. You still want to say that what WE do is torture? It's irritation in comparison.

3 - If we're talking about nuclear sites, maybe not. Look up the gassing of Kurds during Saddam's rule. I am fairly certain that falls under WMD. Here's a link:
http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html
This paragraph is most relevant:

Spoiler

The Baath regime launched 39 separate gas attacks against the Kurds, many of them targeting villages far from the Iran-Iraq border. Beginning at night on Thursday, March 16, and extending into Friday, March 17, 1988, the city of Halabja (population 70,000), was bombarded with twenty chemical and cluster bombs. Photographs show dead children in the street with lunch pails. An estimated 5,000 persons died. Although some analysts say the gas used was hydrogen cyanide (not in Iraq's arsenal), others have suggested it might have been sarin, VX, and tabun. Iraq is known to have these agents. (Iran is not known to have hydrogen cyanide, in any case).

What you personally prefer does not count towards the definition. Beheading IS NOT TORTURE. Its not pleasent but its not torture. And why are you bringing Vietnam into this? Vietnam was a clusterfuck for everyone concerned and your country can't exactly clame the moral high ground in that either. But that aside, the Vietnam was had nothing to do with the modern techniques of torture.

Besides if you want the moral high ground then you cant afford to employ torture of any kind, otherwise you are painted in the same light as the supposedly reprehensable terrorists.

So just because Iraq had chemical weapons 20 years ago means they still had them in 2003? Despite years of crippling sanctions that most likely put any weapons development projects on hold, despite the fact that since the downfall of Saddam Hussain, the combined might of the British and American armies still have not found even a single weapons site.

 

[the_hessian]

I think they should do his trial in Iraq so he can get hung on the same gallows as Saddam

We should give him the trial Nixon never had. Or get another David Frost to interview him.

Just neatly wrap up all the unjust wars around the globe america has commited since WWII into one trail and use Bush as the scapegoat/example... I think that could work... David Frost was a most awesome fellow.

 

[Gashad]

"Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
[...]"

I am not arguing that all Taliban should get POW status(this should be determined by a person to person basis as some Taliban solders probably filled the criteria of being considered combatants while others didn't). I am arguing that under the Geneva convention you have to be either a civilian or a PoW; either the Taliban should get the rights of combatants and be treated as PoW(still tried for the war crimes they committed). Failing that you should grant them the rights of civilians, in which the use of violence is a criminal offense(and should be settled in Afghanistanian courts in Afghanistan).

George Bush granted the prisoners neither the rights of civilians or PoW, and collectively declared ALL Taliban fighters illegal combatants because they failed to distinguish themselves from civilians(the very justification he used), while most would agree that it is very unlikely that every single Taliban fighter hid among civilians(hence one should go by a person by person basis and divide the Taliban soldiers to those who get combatant status and those who get civilian status)

 

[Bat Vader]

I think they should do his trial in Iraq so he can get hung on the same gallows as Saddam

We should give him the trial Nixon never had. Or get another David Frost to interview him.

Just neatly wrap up all the unjust wars around the globe america has commited since WWII into one trail and use Bush as the scapegoat/example... I think that could work... David Frost was a most awesome fellow.

Indeed he was.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Things don't look good for George W. Bush. |: ). Also Gordon Brown because as far as I understand it he managed to dick up everything. Not technically criminal but still...

 

[Worr Monger]

No.

He's out of office now, let it go. Christ, I'm sick hearing about Bush.

 

[Raregolddragon]

Fine you can charge him and Dick but lets take a tally.

WW2 All the war crimes my nation did. Using nukes attacking civilians city's with troops and using nukes on civilians all in all with W the interrogation thing is a little meaningless by the way UN never enforces its laws.

Start with the real offenders of war crimes and ones that can did crimes against humanity the leaders of Israel and Africa there is China most of the middle east that wound up in UN leaders have all violated the sill things.

In comparison GW is a litter bug and China by its own crimes is a Mass Murders.

 

[Barry93]

maybe if it were actually people from this country that were being tortured and not our enemies, but since it was the terrorists being interrogated then what the hell is wrong with that? If he didn't authorize harsh interrogation there likely would've been another succesful terrorist attack and Bush would've been impeached. The first rule of being president is to protect your country, even if it means breaking the law, security comes first. besides, I don't think he broke the law in the first place anyway. As for the war, i don't think you can prosecute someone for declaring war. that would be like going back in time to arrest our fouding fathers for not seeking peaceful solutions with Britain. What have we lost in Iraq? 4000+? That's nothing compared to any other war in our nations history. If the Obama administration prosecutes bush, it will be the worst most irresponsible move made a president ever. Some even speculate that might get him impeached. There are far more important issues to deal with then trying to get a former president in jail. there's nothing to gain from that anyway, it's a massive waste of time.

 

[new_age_reject]

I think he should be tried for war crimes.
But he will never get that, western world is too far up its own righteous ass to do that.

 

[Bill Door]

Any means necessary makes us just like them and I for one will not hope that we sink that low. I know that I would kill the terrorist if he threatened me, my family and my friends (and yes please call me a hypocrite, but I prefer to not use violence when other methods are available).

Yes you would get anything you wanted due to torture and that is why it fails, because then one tortured would do anything to make you stop, even lie and give up his family, friends etc.
You can never be certain that what information you get from torture will be correct and not misleading.
Besides torture is one of the things we try to make them stop doing since it is inhumane and against all international treaties and laws.
I pity you if you think that torture and genocide would solve the worlds problems (not that I haven't had the same thoughts from time to time, I just know that it will not work).

is that the impression i gave you? that i am a bloody mass murderer with no ethics? i used to think exactly like you! and when i say exactly i mean precisely like you! until i turned 20 and was enlisted to the military. i am a born and raised Israeli, and here there's a mandatory 3 years of military service to all civilians turning 18. i postponed my service in 2 years because of my views on the global war on terrorism. (ended up serving 5 years eventually) but those views quickly changed when i realized who is my enemy. allow me to share with you some of my experiences during my service:

* i was ordered to secure the scene of a suicide bombing of a bus. a bus full of children and old men and women. not a mistake, no... it was planned this way i learned later... the suicide bomber chose this bus line and time of day because he knew how dense it was from children coming home from school and people returning from a sale day in the market.
to willingly choose to murder children? i thought to myself.

* i went with my unit to the city of sderot to build there a nice fair for our
Independence day. it was a nice experience, giving from myself for other people. i remember being very excited to take a little break from the military stuff and just have fun... a break from the military stuff??? not when sderot is constantly bombed by qassam rockets, and my stay there consisted less of enjoying in a nice fair for the people, and more in escorting scared children to the shelter, carrying the old and disabled to shelters and assisting the wounded from such attacks (all of whom were targeted civilians).
oh! and those rockets? fired from schools and hospitals and generally terrorists grabbing children at gun point to be their human shields. so we don't shoot them. really, if Israel would have wanted to there would have been no missiles fired on us because the minute we would detect a missile squad we would send our air force to blow them up... but we dont want to hit their children... so we let them hit ours.

* i remember one case not long ago, during the latest gaza strip conflict, i was on my way back home in beer sheva, a city that was bombarded a lot during the conflict. suddenly an alarm sounded indicating an inbound missile. of course as instructed and trained constantly all the traffic stopped in the middle of the road, people went out of their cars, lying on the ground with their hands on their heads. right in front of me a women and a child got out of the car, and the women covered her child with her body. unfortunately fate intervened and the rocket hit right next to them, sending a shrapnel right between the woman's arms and in to the head of her child. thankfully the child survived! (after some time in a coma and a long rehab)

i found this: it explains the middle east conflict well:
http://up46.siz.co.il/up2/2mwgnyqi4ego.jpg

i can fill a book with the horrors I have experienced during my life that made me change my mind about terror and the ways to handle it... its horrible... i don't want innocent people to die... not from any side! but those terrorists... they are animals... they are demons... they are a plague on the surface of this earth... they will bring the end to humanity as we know it if they will have access to nuclear power... and no! "by all means necessary" definitely does not make us like them! there may be accidents resulting in innocents dying, but we will never be like them as long as we regret those losses, and do what we do for the sake of saving lives rather then keeping score who killed more people for those 72 virgins in heaven! and Bush knew that! and he did what he had to!

there's a saying: if the terrorists drop their weapons, we would have peace and prosperity. if the western countries drop their weapons, they will cease to exist.

i urge you all to realize this, and fast...

oh, and true, you cant be sure that information gathered with torture is true. but the chances are its a bit more accurate then the information you got not by torture... there's no argument here, torture works. the question of this whole subject is whether or not it should be used.

 

[LeeHarveyO]

i say kill that inbred monkey

I suggest we punch him in the face a few times first

I don't see what the problem is here all Bush did was try to protect our country and if that requires us ever so slightly ruffing up some piece of shit terrorists then by all means continue with the interrogation, but the man does not deserve to be punished for his actions by any means.