Poll: Should George Bush be tried for crimes against humanity/war crimes?
- Thread starter Gashad
- Start date
Recommended Videos
well now they can TRY to do it, but given that congress passed a law here in the states giving the president the authority top use force to get any of our people that may be put in trial in the ICC back it prolly wouldnt be a good idea wouldnt you agree?Gashad said:
like i said , anyone who wants him is welcome to try and come and get him. hell id pay a nickle to watch the show.
having read this paragraph i snickerd a bit, forgive me in not trying to be rude, but you start out by saying its very clear, than add a bunch of qualifiers such as 'some taliban' and so on. sorry it just made me chuckle is all.
now heres the thing, from what i understand none of the taliban were tortured, that was reserved for the Al-Qaeda, how would you say THEY fit into the geneva convention?
they arent militia, they arent civilians, and they arent part of any nations armed forces so what ARE they? not really arguing im just curious what you (and anyone else that cares to comment) thinks
actualy its NOT worth a mention what the ICC does or doesnt do since the ICC isnt relivent and never will be to the topic of puting Bush on trial.
and again id point out that given that the people tortured werent civilians, or members of any nations armed forces than the geneva convention doesnt apply to them.
that leaves local laws. and im just not sure what ones if any could or would apply since there is no local law in this situation, they arent on US soil but ARE in US custody, they arent however under civilian custody but rather the military, that means that the 'laws' that would apply are the UCMJ and under that the president is pretty much the ultimate authority. judge, jury, and executioner. ESPECIALY since there is no UCMJ code at ALL that deals with this situation that i know of.
interesting case from a legal point of view anyhow. i fully admit that id like to see him charged if there IS laws that he could be charged under. but the one thing thats prompted me to really push this argument (besides the fact i like to argue) is mindless drones spewing 'hang the monky' or words to taht effect because he broke some law, but when pressed no one is able to actualy show what legal basis there is to charge him and what LAW (not treaty, nor declaration but LAW) to charge him with breaking. most people dont even know what body would or should be responcable for bringing charges assuming there was any to bring in the first place.
sadam was a president of the United States?Bigsmith said:
you should actualy READ the things your responding too you know, might help you avoid looking foolish if nothing else *snicker*
Yet I have certain hopes that Obama wouldn't chose to invade Hague even if he had authorization to do so(for one thing under the Nato treaty all Nato members would be required to declare war against the US)Wyatt said:
Don't really understand what you are trying to say here. My point has been this, George Bush went out and said we are going to treat all Taliban as illegal combatants(and i repeat that he just made out that term). I have always maintained that some Taliban would fit the criteria of being a militia(if they take orders from a authority, obey the laws of wars, wear uniform etc) while others wouldn't(and hence be civilians). By declaring an entire army guilty of an individual crime (hiding among civilians was the motivation George Bush used to explain why the Taliban were illegal combatants) is a gross violation of justice as everyone should be held responsible for there own actions.Wyatt said:
I would say that most Al-Qaida members fighting in Afghanistan would not fulfill the criteria for being militia and would hence be civilians. This means that they are not legally allowed to use violence against US troops. However violation of this is a criminal offense and should be handled in an Afghan court in Afghanistan as it was there the crime was committed(basically they are murderers and should be treated as such, the US is not allowed to move them out of Afghanistan and try them in non Afghan courts).Wyatt said:
There's a long queue. Putin first, then Bush. But, I hate to point out, these people have friends in very high places. They do not give a shit if the masses want to put them on trial, and the UN, aside from being fucking ridiculous, is in their pockets.
I'd put him and his former cabinet up for both but he will face neither. The current U.S. government would never allow it. Nor would any other U.S. Government since Nixon and possibly since Roosevelt. They have a thing for escaping consequences.
As an extreme facisiast and savage left wing pacifist I oppose some of Bush's decisions.
However I don't think the man has done anything that can truly be called 'crimes against humanity' or at least not on purpose.
I mean he didn't cannibalise small children while forcing their parents to watch on the grounds that they were ethnic At least I don't think he would do such a thing... then again that's what they said about Dr. Lecter and look what happened there). Besides most people said that while very right wing he was still quite charming.
I say don't let the world forget that he made some very dumb decisions, but you can't call him the most evil man in the world. That prize goes to whoever the internets first gaming troll was.
However I don't think the man has done anything that can truly be called 'crimes against humanity' or at least not on purpose.
I mean he didn't cannibalise small children while forcing their parents to watch on the grounds that they were ethnic At least I don't think he would do such a thing... then again that's what they said about Dr. Lecter and look what happened there). Besides most people said that while very right wing he was still quite charming.
I say don't let the world forget that he made some very dumb decisions, but you can't call him the most evil man in the world. That prize goes to whoever the internets first gaming troll was.
im not really interested in getting into a dick waving contest about whos touhger here, so ill only say this. im anti-Bush and think he should face some kind of punishment for what he did, but before id see him put on trial at the ICC id be demanding that Obama and the rest of the government go get him, and YES to fight war, even with Nato to do it. *i* and most americans im sure feel the same, wont allow OUR people to be put in trial by anything but American courts, if for no other reason than we are actualy interested in seeing justice done and not just political expediance.Gashad said:
belive it or not i think this is too big of an issue to ever pass off too the ICC even if we wanted too. and so should you if your non american. even if he was found guilty under ICC 'laws' he would become an instiant hero to Americans. better to let our own system try and punish him, that turns him from hero to criminol when/if hes found guilty.
my laughter was to do so much with the detaisl of the topic, but the statment you made that it was clear and simple, then proceeded too muddy it up.
its NOT clear and simple. we didnt recognize that taliban as the legitimate source of authority in afganistian. therefor anyone following orders given by the taliban 'government' arent part of any militia.
look at it like this, say a gang takes over in south central LA. they declare themseles the new government of LA and they actualy control large tracts of land, where there is no local law but their own. when the US troops move in to confront them are they now to be treated as POWs?
now take this a step further. you say that ok even if they ARENT militia than in that case they are civilians and should be charged as criminols based on local laws. what happens when there ARE no local laws?
the taliban were a bandit government in a nation with no ligitimate government or system of laws, how then do you decide what to do with them? you have no local laws as a guide, the geneva convention doesnt apply either, what DO you do?
and finaly its a war situation. no mater what names you give to those on either side, you have two groups of people trying to kill each other in a lawless land far from any settled authority. i would argue, hell common sense alone tells us that the 'law' is what ever the winners say it is. that is untill local authority can be estsablished. id LOVE for the US to be able to hand the taliban prisoners over to afganistian for trial and death/inprisonment but untill we win the war thats not apt to happen. respect for customes and laws is all well and good untill it becomes a point that its those very local customs and 'laws' that your fighting a war against. the taliban WERE the 'local law' and thats what we are at war with.
see, its not quite as simple as you make out is it?
see above.
Double checked my sources so I might slightly contradict a few things I wrote previously
It is important to note that even the Bush administration admitted that there were laws involved, in George Bush Speech on February 7th 2002 where he established that:
the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, to which both Afghanistan and the United States are parties, applies to the armed conflict in Afghan- istan between the Taliban and the United States;
He then however claimed that it didn't apply to the Taliban soldiers, yet admitting that the geneva convention(which guides international conflict) would apply, I would say would constitute beyond doubt that this is a international conflict.
Moreover the Bush administration has never questioned the fact that the Taliban would constitute the de facto government of Afghanistan(which had signed the Geneva convention, for instance when justifying not giving the combatant status the white house used the following motivation:
"Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, ... Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierar- chy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
The Taliban have not effectively distinguished themselves from the civilian popula- tion of Afghanistan. Moreover, they have not conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Instead, they have knowingly adopted and provided sup- port to the unlawful terrorist objectives of the al Qaeda.'"
Please not that the only point which they do not criticize the Taliban for is being part of a military hierarchy, another indication that the Bush administration recognizes the Taliban as fighting for a nation (Indeed if all you would have to do was not recognice a government to not have to abide by the Geneva convention, it would be effectively worthless).
Moreover the Geneva convention even states that:
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.24"
Meaning that if there was even any doubt of the status of Taliban soldiers they should have had protection under the Geneva convention for combatants.
Hence both these statements indicate strongly that the Bush administration admits that this is an international conflict and that the taliban are the de facto government of Afghanistan. This would mean that some Taliban soldiers would be classified as combatants.
However if you dispute the claims of Taliban government being legitimate and any Taliban soldiers being combatants this would only mean they would all be civilians. The key rule for civilians is that the occupying power is never allowed to move them outside the country(read-Guantanamo highly illegal, along with the rest of the secret prisons). Which system of laws would be applicable in the Taliban case is debatable(all depends on who you recognize as the legitimate government), you might even be able to justify using pre-soviet invasion laws or creating your own legislation as occupying power, yet it does not change the fact that moving civilians out of a country is a blatant violation of international law and would constitute a war crime.
Wyatt said:
It is important to note that even the Bush administration admitted that there were laws involved, in George Bush Speech on February 7th 2002 where he established that:
the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, to which both Afghanistan and the United States are parties, applies to the armed conflict in Afghan- istan between the Taliban and the United States;
He then however claimed that it didn't apply to the Taliban soldiers, yet admitting that the geneva convention(which guides international conflict) would apply, I would say would constitute beyond doubt that this is a international conflict.
Moreover the Bush administration has never questioned the fact that the Taliban would constitute the de facto government of Afghanistan(which had signed the Geneva convention, for instance when justifying not giving the combatant status the white house used the following motivation:
"Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, ... Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierar- chy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
The Taliban have not effectively distinguished themselves from the civilian popula- tion of Afghanistan. Moreover, they have not conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Instead, they have knowingly adopted and provided sup- port to the unlawful terrorist objectives of the al Qaeda.'"
Please not that the only point which they do not criticize the Taliban for is being part of a military hierarchy, another indication that the Bush administration recognizes the Taliban as fighting for a nation (Indeed if all you would have to do was not recognice a government to not have to abide by the Geneva convention, it would be effectively worthless).
Moreover the Geneva convention even states that:
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.24"
Meaning that if there was even any doubt of the status of Taliban soldiers they should have had protection under the Geneva convention for combatants.
Hence both these statements indicate strongly that the Bush administration admits that this is an international conflict and that the taliban are the de facto government of Afghanistan. This would mean that some Taliban soldiers would be classified as combatants.
However if you dispute the claims of Taliban government being legitimate and any Taliban soldiers being combatants this would only mean they would all be civilians. The key rule for civilians is that the occupying power is never allowed to move them outside the country(read-Guantanamo highly illegal, along with the rest of the secret prisons). Which system of laws would be applicable in the Taliban case is debatable(all depends on who you recognize as the legitimate government), you might even be able to justify using pre-soviet invasion laws or creating your own legislation as occupying power, yet it does not change the fact that moving civilians out of a country is a blatant violation of international law and would constitute a war crime.
i read your responce and found it well informed. thats on the plus side for me since thats my real goal even getting invovled in this thread. to make people actualy put some thought into the topic other than ignorance as bad as taht wich they accuse Bush and Co of.Gashad said:
now i dont really wish to contine the cut/past aspects. since number 1 we arent going to resolve this in any way, and number 2 you present an argument i can present a counter. and i can do this while we actualy share the same over all opinion that Bush should be put in trial. im not sure that we differ in any way, other than perhaps you would use the ICC when i think that 'internationel law' is a joke.
anyhow i could counter most of your post by basicaly rehashing my last post. even if 'some' if the taliban were classified as 'soldiers' what proof do you have any of THOSE were tortured? as ive said before as i understand it the only ones to actualy be tortured were al-qaeda not taliban. untill you can establish that the person being tortured was under some form of law, be it internationel or domesting American law than again ill ask what do we charge Bush WITH?
i could stipulate to everything you just said and still say that Bush broke no laws. i could agree that ALL of the taliban were soldiers and that the war in afganistian was as clear cut a case of being under the clauses of the geneva convention as ever existed and still ask what do we charge Bush with? no taiban were tortured that i know of. now assume for a moment we find out that there WERE taliban tortured, next we would ahve to establish if they met YOUR standards of protection. were they in uniform when they were captured? were they part of a military force of the legitimate government of afganistian? and so on.
you said that if they arent military than they are civilians and should be tried under local law, thats wrong. there IS no local law. the only thing that could possably be called 'local law' is the very orginazation we are fighting in the first place. you also said that we cant remove civilians from the war zone, id agree (though there are presidents otherwise) but again id say that those we captured arent civilians they ARE 'enemy combatants'.
laugh if you will about Bush making up that term, but i say this. the enemy can read the 'rule books' too, and they have set out to establish a way of fighting that is outside the scope of those 'laws' and treatys that we have long supported. indeed one of the goals of terrorist orginazations of all stripes is too subvert our 'internationel laws' as well as domestic. its part of their war goals to court anarchy because in the absence of settled government and established laws than those with the biggest guns generaly win.
i dont actualy see a problem with this idea of enemy combatants, if for no other reason than this very chat you and i are having now. it has to be as obvious to you as it is to me that there is holes in 'internationel laws' big enough to throw a cat through, there is also gapong holes in domestic laws here in the states about how we treat these people. they ARENT military in the conventionel sense, they certianly arent civilian either so what are they? and what laws govern them?
id answer that NO laws govern them at the moment, and id say that rather than chase Bush and try and hang him under some legal gymnastics or trumped up political agenda that we should all of us first at home here in the states and then perhaps expanded to the rest of the international community seek to establish actual written laws to govern what these types of 'enemy combatants' actualy ARE in a real written law legal sense, so NEXT time we arent left with a president that OKs torture of ANYONE and can do it .......... and ultimatly get away with it, because there IS a lack of laws with wich to charge him.
i ask you again to show me what law we should charge him with breaking that cant be subverted by an internet 'tard' like myself, let alone a lawyer that is actualy educated on the legal details. you havent show me anything yet that i think is a reasonable 'crime' to charge bush with, and i AGREE with you. run head long into lawyer versed in internationel law or even one in domestic laws that think Bush was spot on 100% right (such as clearly our whole justice department under Bush) and you dont stand a chance.
when our department of Justice thinks that there is no law being broke, you can pretty much rest assured that there wasnt. that IS a long way however frome saying that what Bush did was moral or ethical its just a case of there not bieng any laws in place to stop him or that any laws that are in place dont actualy apply and they could make a legal argument to support that position.
personely i think the thing we need to do now is to close those holes in our law books so that while Bush might 'get away with this' that no one else ever will again.
it just reminds me too much of the Government chargin Al Capone with tax evasion because they couldnt get him for murder. i dont want justice by lynch mob, i want real justice by the rule of law. that for me is BIGGER than anything else, including torture. id rather Bush walk free and we establish or change the laws to make sure it doesnt happen again than to twist no laws or miss apply existing laws to 'hang him' because when you start to do that, it might be YOUR neck in the noose next.
what makes US different from afganistian is that we DO have laws and we DO submit too their rule, if we just start ignoring them or making shit up in the name of political expediance than we become them and that would be a MUCH worse situation for the entire world than the fait of a few obvious scum terrorists and the fact that they were tortured.
i dont think we should compound our problems with a radical president that thinks torture is a good idea by follwing it with a witch hunt that seeks to charge him with 'crimes' that just dont exist at worse and at best require us to twist meanings and jump through legal hoops that would choke a mule to apply them.
