Recently with the release of the torture memos, some debate has arisen if the people who were responsible for the torture should be tried for there crimes. Now I would argue that while modern law of war would mean that people are responsible for there own actions, it would be profoundly unfair to try those who committed the actions but not those who ordered them(Indeed by the law of war officers are responsible for the actions of their soldiers, especially if they order them). This would probably bring the guilt all the way up to the top (even if George Bush wasn't aware/didn't authorize the torture [which I at least believe he did/was], as commander in chief he has responsibility to have control over the actions of the soldiers). Hence as torture is specifically forbidden in both the law of war and the universal declaration of human rights there is no doubt that George Bush has committed a criminal offence.
Even if you dispute the torture claims one cannot deny that George Bush has committed war crimes. By declaring the entire Taliban army "illegal combatants"(a term which for the record does not exist in the laws of war, it was just something George Bush made up), he has denied the Taliban fighters their rights as either combatants or civilians (The Geneva Conventions stipulates that all people in a conflict area must be one or the other) and hence clearly committed a war crime.
To try him there can be three possible authorities. Either the US which has signed both the Geneva Convention and the universal declaration of human rights can initiate proceedings against him. Moreover torture counts as a crime against humanity in which countries have universal jurisdiction, meaning that any country which George Bush visits can try him for it. Finally the international court of justice can step in and try a person for war crimes provided that the government the person belongs to (The U.S government in this case) is unable or unwilling to initiate proceedings against the person. While the US hasn't joined the ICC, most of the rest of the world have, and hence these could all send him to the ICC should he visit that country (some of the ICC members signed papers promising the US they will not send US citizens to the ICC however).
So do you think any of these authorities should try George Bush? Personally (in case you didn't catch the tone of this text) I am hoping for him being tried.
Even if you dispute the torture claims one cannot deny that George Bush has committed war crimes. By declaring the entire Taliban army "illegal combatants"(a term which for the record does not exist in the laws of war, it was just something George Bush made up), he has denied the Taliban fighters their rights as either combatants or civilians (The Geneva Conventions stipulates that all people in a conflict area must be one or the other) and hence clearly committed a war crime.
To try him there can be three possible authorities. Either the US which has signed both the Geneva Convention and the universal declaration of human rights can initiate proceedings against him. Moreover torture counts as a crime against humanity in which countries have universal jurisdiction, meaning that any country which George Bush visits can try him for it. Finally the international court of justice can step in and try a person for war crimes provided that the government the person belongs to (The U.S government in this case) is unable or unwilling to initiate proceedings against the person. While the US hasn't joined the ICC, most of the rest of the world have, and hence these could all send him to the ICC should he visit that country (some of the ICC members signed papers promising the US they will not send US citizens to the ICC however).
So do you think any of these authorities should try George Bush? Personally (in case you didn't catch the tone of this text) I am hoping for him being tried.
