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

[Therumancer]

I basically feel that the UN has outlived it's usefulness and International Law is meaningless to us at the moment.

Basically to try Bush for War Crimes also opens the questions as to why his actions were rendered nessicary. Had the UN as a whole intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan before this happened (before 9/11 even) we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rather the UN and it's member nations chose to ignore problems that seemed too inconveinent (and expensive), or were exploiting the situation for their own benefit like France was through the Oil For
Food program.

Opinions vary of course. Bush was always going to be a huge target for the left wing no matter what he did after the attempt to Impeach Bill Clinton. Right now a lot of the people in the left wing simply want to see a right wing president up on the hot seat so to speak.

Then again consider I'm one of those people who that when it comes to the US and our role in the world (appreciated or not) feels our motto should be "Do as we say, not as we do". Just because the US does something and it shouldn't be considered a crime, does not mean that another nation doing the same thing in a differant context should be excused. I see our role as being the arbiters of such things (and yes I know many people disagree with the whole 'above the law, world police' mentality).

For example I feel most of the prohibations against toture and such were idiotic ivory tower policies with little foundation in reality, especially as they were written. Whether others agree or not, I for one consider there be a clear differance between what we have been doing (or trying to do) in "The War On Terror" and say what the Khymer Rouge was doing. The problem with the current system (and arguably the current mentality) is the failure to make that distinction.



>>>----Therumancer--->

 

[Lord Kofun]

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.

-You are correct: Definition is not affected by personal opinion. However, at no point did I say that beheading was torture. I merely implied that, again, by comparison, we are behaving far more kindly.
-I was using Vietnam as a comparison. I brought it up because old torture methods are not absent from modern day practices of certain groups.
-I am concerned about your math skills.. 2003 - 1993 = 10.
-It was on the bloody news that we would be moving in before we actually invaded, so it's not terribly hard to believe that they may have had a good mind to evacuate prior to invasion.
-The sanctions didn't do all of that much. Half the time, they weren't followed as intended.

Either way, neither of us seem to be moving from our opinion. Call it a day?

 

[lizards]

he did a fine job as a president a lot of twats just dont relize how hard it is to run the US today

 

[lizards]

and i know i should just edit the last post but im not going to

i dont understand why people are like "THE US SHOULDNT BE IN IRAQ" like were the only ones over their anyways besides most reasons against that war are just opinions

 

[Iskenator67]

George Bush is not evil. He's just stupid.

 

[Wyatt]

I basically feel that the UN has outlived it's usefulness and International Law is meaningless to us at the moment.

Basically to try Bush for War Crimes also opens the questions as to why his actions were rendered nessicary. Had the UN as a whole intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan before this happened (before 9/11 even) we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rather the UN and it's member nations chose to ignore problems that seemed too inconveinent (and expensive), or were exploiting the situation for their own benefit like France was through the Oil For
Food program.

Opinions vary of course. Bush was always going to be a huge target for the left wing no matter what he did after the attempt to Impeach Bill Clinton. Right now a lot of the people in the left wing simply want to see a right wing president up on the hot seat so to speak.

Then again consider I'm one of those people who that when it comes to the US and our role in the world (appreciated or not) feels our motto should be "Do as we say, not as we do". Just because the US does something and it shouldn't be considered a crime, does not mean that another nation doing the same thing in a differant context should be excused. I see our role as being the arbiters of such things (and yes I know many people disagree with the whole 'above the law, world police' mentality).

For example I feel most of the prohibations against toture and such were idiotic ivory tower policies with little foundation in reality, especially as they were written. Whether others agree or not, I for one consider there be a clear differance between what we have been doing (or trying to do) in "The War On Terror" and say what the Khymer Rouge was doing. The problem with the current system (and arguably the current mentality) is the failure to make that distinction.



>>>----Therumancer--->

well spoken. i agree 98%, the 2% is that we SHOULD practice what we preach but i agree with everything else you said.

i dont like bush, at all, but i like the gas bags in the UN one hell of alot less. Bush might be an idiot but hes OUR idiot and we will clean our own house thank you very much.

id be willing to see bush put on trial at the 'world court' just as soon as some nation can build a military large enough to come dig him out of his fox hole. on the world stage like it or not might DOES make right and if you want a seat at the big kids table than you better be able to do more than set in the well of the UN and gas. you want a roll and a hand in shaping world matters than you need to spend some of your tax dollers on building a force big enough to speak for you.

come get him if you can. id be happy as an American too see someone else take over this joke of a roll as 'world leader'. the pay sucks, the perks are horrible, and no one has a good word to say about the job we do. so fuck em, anyone that wants to try their hand at doing better, spend a few trillion, build a military bad ass enough to come get him, and we Americans can all retire to our park benches like most european nations have and spend the rest of our days bitching about what a horrible job the new guy is doing.

till then we will clean our own house as we choose too and if you dont like it, well ... we dont much give a shit.

 

[macapus]

So, then, if all the high ranking officials should be tried, we should lock up the House, Senate, Former VP Dick Cheny, and the entire presendential cambinet. Or maby we shouldn't, because some of them aren't evil conservative nazis*sarcasm*. If you don't like Bush, you need to find another charge because everyone who was informed about GitMo would have to be tried to.

 

[YuheJi]

George Bush did not do anything worse than many previous presidents had done. What about Nixon? He ordered a bombing on Cambodia despite the fact that the war was in Vietnam. And that destabilized the entire country, with the government overthrown and soon around a million dead.

 

[Gaskell]

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.

The problem is he didn't just ruff up terrorists, and it gave way to racial profiling, breaches of human rights and a lost of international freedom of speech
The guy is a fucktard and his administration was about as close to the far right as you can get without rolling out the swastika

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Have YOU read the Guantanamo Bay Torture Memo- For Kids yet? [http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-guantanamo-bay-torture-memos-for-kids/]


Legally required disclaimer: Contains language, satirism, and precociousness!

I say again, the Guantanmo Bay Torture Memo- For Kids is a must-read for all who want to let Bush + Friends all off the hook so easily...

 

[Wyatt]

Have YOU read the Guantanamo Bay Torture Memo- For Kids yet? [http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-guantanamo-bay-torture-memos-for-kids/]


Legally required disclaimer: Contains language, satirism, and precociousness!

I say again, the Guantanmo Bay Torture Memo- For Kids is a must-read for all who want to let Bush + Friends all off the hook so easily...

i read that, and we arent kids.

you might not agree with what Bush and company said or did, i dont agree with what they said and more importianbt what they DID. but here is the ticket.

?Hold on,? the little boy interrupted. ?Just so I?m clear, when you say his ?mean parents wouldn?t allow him,? you?re talking about international law, right? Like, it?s international law that forbids Americans from using torture, so in the story when it complains about ?mean parents,? it?s really about the international law?? I smiled at the small boy.

this is the core of this whole thread if you ask me. and the fact is that 'international law' is NOT the worlds version of 'parents' to us all. it was kind of a joke in the context of that post, but there is a ring of truth to it as well that is obvious as hell to anyone reading this topic. the very idea that Bush could be 'punished' by ANYTHING other than a US court of law brings on a whole new aspect.

as i said, im willing to see (would even like too see) Bush punished under US law by US judges, but if you think that international law will play any part in that , your dreaming. i WOULD rather see bush 'get away with it' than subject ANY Americans to any sort of Kangaroo 'world court'.

?Look, kid, if you have a problem with the shady manipulation of language for the purposes of advancing an agenda, maybe I should stop reading this story now, because it?s only gonna snowball from here.?

thats about perfect for this whole topic. and that statment cuts both ways. its not JUST the Bush adminstration thats using "shady manipulation of language for the purposes of advancing an agenda". that entire link was one such example.

nations arent kids, and we arent so stupid yet that we need this explaned too us and to be talked down too as if we were children. you may not agree with Bush (i dont) but that doesnt mean that he was flat out wrong, or he even commited any crimes.

the most basic question being asked here (or that should be asked) is does the president of the United states (or any other world leader for that matter) have both the duty and the right to do ANYTHING he deems proper to safe guard America from attack? i would answer yes, he does, within the scope of the constitution. other non americas would argue that he does within the scope of internationel law, Bush would argue that without a safe and secure America than the constitution itself means nothing and internationel law is even less than that, so his first duty is too safeguard America by any means needed and that ultimatly he IS the law.

this is what all the debate is about in reality. and the fact is that of these 3 choices i listed , internationel law isnt even in the runing. the only REAL question is did bush act outside the scope of the constitution to my mind, and since the constitution doesnt apply to non Americans outside OUR borders than this is another of the core questions in debate. Bush didnt break our laws because OUR laws didnt apply to the situation.

you dont agree? well now, i and alot of other Americans dont really either, and i wouldnt mind runing these arguments past the supreme court to establish the right and the wrong of it for all FUTURE times. but before we get too a 'war crimes' trial stage we need to establish if Bush even commite a 'crime' under US law at ALL, then we could perhaps toss a bone to the 'internationel community' and maybe hold a UN hearing or something after words to just rubber stamp what ever we decide and help keep the UN proped up for another year or two so the rest of the world can go on pretending its importiant.

 

[Gashad]

Have YOU read the Guantanamo Bay Torture Memo- For Kids yet? [http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-guantanamo-bay-torture-memos-for-kids/]

as i said, im willing to see (would even like too see) Bush punished under US law by US judges, but if you think that international law will play any part in that , your dreaming. i WOULD rather see bush 'get away with it' than subject ANY Americans to any sort of Kangaroo 'world court'.

this is what all the debate is about in reality. and the fact is that of these 3 choices i listed , internationel law isnt even in the runing. the only REAL question is did bush act outside the scope of the constitution to my mind, and since the constitution doesnt apply to non Americans outside OUR borders than this is another of the core questions in debate. Bush didnt break our laws because OUR laws didnt apply to the situation.

you dont agree? well now, i and alot of other Americans dont really either, and i wouldnt mind runing these arguments past the supreme court to establish the right and the wrong of it for all FUTURE times. but before we get too a 'war crimes' trial stage we need to establish if Bush even commite a 'crime' under US law at ALL, then we could perhaps toss a bone to the 'internationel community' and maybe hold a UN hearing or something after words to just rubber stamp what ever we decide and help keep the UN proped up for another year or two so the rest of the world can go on pretending its importiant.

Actually I would agree that this is primary an American issue. Indeed international law recognizes this (the ICC only has the right to try people if the country they are from are unwilling or unable to try them). However unless I am mistaken (And I could be, I am no expert on American law), International law = American law as the US have some system in which if they sign and ratify a international agreement(Such as the Geneva convention or the Universal declaration of human rights) it immediately becomes an American law.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

i read that, and we arent kids.

[/snip]

nations arent kids.

I am well aware of that. I am also aware of the fact that Bush is never going to be prosecuted no matter what anyone does, because he's A) rich and B) a former President, and you only need one of those for a Universal Get-Out-Of-Consequences-Free Card. So, even if he isn't going to be prosecuted, people need to know what really went on. If using a bizarre metaphor advances that goal, then I'm in support of it.

 

[Wyatt]

Actually I would agree that this is primary an American issue. Indeed international law recognizes this (the ICC only has the right to try people if the country they are from are unwilling or unable to try them). However unless I am mistaken (And I could be, I am no expert on American law), International law = American law as the US have some system in which if they sign and ratify a international agreement(Such as the Geneva convention or the Universal declaration of human rights) it immediately becomes an American law.

well now the ICC has no right to do anything with Americans in any way shape or form in ANY case at all. we didnt ratify it, and Bush withdrew our signature too it in 02

from wikie (and is accurate i checked)

Although the US originally voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute, President Bill Clinton unexpectedly reversed his position on 31 December 2000 and signed the treaty,[27][28] but indicated that he would not recommend that his successor, George W. Bush, submit it to the Senate for ratification.[29] On 6 May 2002, the Bush administration announced it was nullifying the United States' signature of the treaty.[30] The country's main objections are interference with their national sovereignty and a fear of politically motivated prosecutions.

In 2002, the U.S. Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which contained a number of provisions, including prohibitions on the U.S. providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court (exceptions granted), and permitting the President to authorize military force to free any U.S. military personnel held by the court, leading opponents to dub it the "Hague Invasion Act." The act was later modified to permit U.S. cooperation with the ICC when dealing with U.S. enemies.

so we can rule out any form of punishment or trial in the ICC for ANY American let alone a former president. in fact should the ICC somehow manage to arrest him we would/could fight a friggen war to get him back LOL. newp that paths out for certian.



now i say good point, that last bit, im not sure that a treaty is a law though. it seems to me , and perhaps someone who DOES know could clear this up, but it seems to me that a treaty by itself holds no weight in law unless our government in all 3 branches give it american legal teeth.

i would argue that number 1) the Universal declaration of human rights isnt a law, its a declaration. in other words there is no law to break and no 'punishment' under any law for breaking it.

number 2) the geneva convention wouldnt apply since those we tortured arent prisoners of war they are simply 'enemy combatants'. no aspect of the geneva convention governs these terrorists since they represent no other nation or group of people that have signed the geneva convention.

now let us assume for just a moment that we COULD apply the geneva convention in this case. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/305?OpenDocument is a link to the text of the convention. can you show me where the punishment is laid out under 'internationel law' for those nations/people that break this convention? can you show me what the punishment under US law is for breaking this convention?

what im getting at is even if we decided to punish Bush, what law would we put him on trial for breaking? the only law that i can see that might apply would be the consitution under the cruel and unusual punishment clause, and that wouldnt apply since the constitution doesnt apply to non americans not on US soil.

im just not clear what we could charge him with is all.

I am well aware of that. I am also aware of the fact that Bush is never going to be prosecuted no matter what anyone does, because he's A) rich and B) a former President, and you only need one of those for a Universal Get-Out-Of-Consequences-Free Card. So, even if he isn't going to be prosecuted, people need to know what really went on. If using a bizarre metaphor advances that goal, then I'm in support of it.

well now that 'hes rich' comment doesnt ammount too much, ask Bernie Madoff how much being rich helped him.

now part B, you have a point. but while you would seem to think this is something bad, i dont agree, any good that could posably come from trumping up a witch hunt on bush and company after the fact would hurt all future presidents MUCH more than any 'justice' for Bush that we could ever come up with. my one wish is that our government at the TIME he was doing this had the balls to stand up and stop him THEN not chase after him long after the fact. i dont want to shut the barn door now the horse is out, i want the usless fucks charged with leading our nation to keep the friggen horse in the barn in the first place.

i think people 'really know' whats going on, and an foolish, snarky, comedy webpage isnt the most valid or useful tool to explane it too those that dont. this isnt a complicated issue after all and if it truly matters to someone than id say getting your 'facts' off of cracked is pretty ignorant wouldnt you? and that page in particular has nothing at ALL to do with whats 'really going on'. do you know anyone that could read that and go "ahh HAAA ..... NOW i get it"? if you do, than run, dont walk, RUN from the idiots quickly, go find something to kill them with before they can breed.

 

[Gashad]

well now the ICC has no right to do anything with Americans in any way shape or form in ANY case at all. we didnt ratify it, and Bush withdrew our signature too it in 02

Actually it does, provided that the Americans leave America and visit a country which has joined the ICC(the USA has "persuaded" some countries however to promise never to turn American citizens to the ICC, most ratifiers of the ICC have signed no such provisions however)

number 2) the geneva convention wouldnt apply since those we tortured arent prisoners of war they are simply 'enemy combatants'. no aspect of the geneva convention governs these terrorists since they represent no other nation or group of people that have signed the geneva convention.

The Geneva convention is actually very clear her. When fighting in a war you must treat soldiers as combatants or civilians (note the term illegal combatants is just something George bush made up-it holds no legal merit). Now I am not saying(And it feels like i have said this many times) that all Taliban fighters should get combatant status. However it is important to note that George bush didn't just declare the terrorists unlawful combatants, he declared the entire Taliban army unlawful combatants, and it is obvious that some of these would get combatant status as at least militia if not regular soldier as the Taliban regime was not formally recognized. Failing that, according to the Geneva convention if they are not granted combatant status they should get civilian status and get the rights of such.

now let us assume for just a moment that we COULD apply the geneva convention in this case. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/305?OpenDocument is a link to the text of the convention. can you show me where the punishment is laid out under 'internationel law' for those nations/people that break this convention? can you show me what the punishment under US law is for breaking this convention?

I must admit that I have never encountered how the Geneva convention is enforced. However as generally it is each countries duty to punish its own soldiers I would assume that it is up to them to decide the punishment. It is worth mentioning however that the Geneva conventions(and the Hague conventions) really define what constitutes a war crime and would be seen as a law in these circumstances8indeed the only law that would apply in war). While i don't know how the US implements its Geneva convention i do know that the ICC reserves the right to try people for some breaches among the Geneva convention including:

Torture or inhumane treatment

Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial


Both which I would argue Bush is guilty of.

 

[Shycte]

OH HELL NO!! Not another Bush-flaming mob.

I have no grudge against Bush. Sure he started an unwanted war, but if the Kongress didn't agree, there wouldn't be a war. I don't think that Bush is a criminal, he declared war against a poor country because he belived that it would be for the best.

Also, international laws and the UN are nothing short of a joke. Just look at China, the rape the human rights every single day and yet no-one is getting their thump out of their ass.

 

[Froggyman1000]

I always get to arguments so late. Darn the luck. Ehh, in any case, unless we can legally start charging people with crimes of stupidity, I really don't think Bush did anything worth charging him for. It's pretty well known he wasn't in control of much during his presidency, and if you charge Bush, you'd essentially have to charge everyone that was involved in the situation as well, which is something you simply are not going to see from the American government.

I would like to point out however that viewing America as the world police is the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. It reminds me of the movie with the puppets, Team America, World police. "Do as I say, not as I do," is an awful way to practice anything. You cannot expect anyone to do something you are not willing to do yourself, and yet America likes to play that card all the time. Truthfully in War, anything is going to happen, and if you've got to protect millions of people, you're probably going to dunk some idiots head in the water a few times to get him to tell you what you want. Do I agree with these methods? No, but it's not my responsibility to protect millions of people from Terrorists either.

If you are not there to experience the situation, you're not really going to be the best judge on it either. I have no idea what war does to people, nor do I know what it's like to carry such responsibility as to be in charge of countless lives, and neither do most of you. As much as you'd like to believe you wouldn't do the same thing, you have no clue what you'd do until you're put in that situation. You can disagree with his methods, or the supposed methods all you'd like, but as for judging them? You have no right.

Bush was a horrible president in my honest opinion. I think he damaged this country, I truly do, but I don't know if I could do any better, so I'm just going to assume he's an idiot and move on. I'm not going to try to put some penalty on his head, I don't think that's right.

 

[Bigsmith]

Ex- President's will never answer for their actions. In the states that is.

Sadly, this is true, they are above the law, they can do whatever they want without even caring.

Yet Saddam was hung for crimes against humanity. So he wasn't above the law now was he.