• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Did George W Bush commit war crimes to the american standard

BobTheCoward

Banned
B
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
22,789
I was thinking about accusations that Bush and Cheney were war criminal.

I have little doubt that they meet that standard in some nations around the world.

My question is if they committed a war crime as that term exists in America?

It seems it would be very difficult to have congress pass a war crime law that could affect the commander in chief. Almost every war crime, by definition, is a CoC decision reserved to the president that congress has no legal say.

Any thoughts?
 
BobTheCoward said:
I was thinking about accusations that Bush and Cheney were war criminal.

I have little doubt that they meet that standard in some nations around the world.

My question is if they committed a war crime as that term exists in America?

It seems it would be very difficult to have congress pass a war crime law that could affect the commander in chief. Almost every war crime, by definition, is a CoC decision reserved to the president that congress has no legal say.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

The "American standard" consists of being indicted on the charge of committing a war crime, being tried in a court of law for that crime, being convicted of that crime, and having that conviction upheld by one or more higher courts on appeal. So by the "American standard", no, they did not commit any war crimes.

Alternatively, American law provides for Congress to remove the President for office any time they see fit, for whatever reason they like. For example, Congress could have declared that Bush committed "war crimes" (according to whatever definition Congress preferred), and removed him from office on those grounds. Again, history is clear: even by this American standard, they did not commit any war crimes.

Finally, there's always the Court of Public Opinion. Americans value individuality and independent thinking (among other, often contradictory things). Americans are welcome to believe--and preach--any asinine thing that comes into their heads, whether or not they have any evidence or reason to support it. By this American standard, they certainly did commit war crimes, but it depends who you talk to, and what exactly you talk about.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by "the American standard," but the Bush admin did break laws while engaged in combat (as did many administrations before and after). I doubt that most Americans want anything seriously done about it though.

eta: Bush has been found guilty of war crimes along with Tony Blair; not by the U.S. though.
 
Last edited:
They failed to meet one important part of the conditions nessacary, being defeated militarily.
 
So what are you guys going to do about these imaginary war crimes that you hope happened?
 
jimtron said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "the American standard," but the Bush admin did break laws while engaged in combat (as did many administrations before and after). I doubt that most Americans want anything seriously done about it though.

eta: Bush has been found guilty of war crimes along with Tony Blair; not by the U.S. though.
Click to expand...

This is what got me thinking.

But did they break an American law?

I will define break for here.

1) The law exists
2) it applies to the president


I want to emphasize that I am not pro-war crime or pro-bush. I am all for rewriting the constitution to address war from a 21st century perspective. But you have to go by what exists, not what you want.
 
Virus said:
So what are you guys going to do about these imaginary war crimes that you hope happened?
Click to expand...

Same thing they always do: try to get some more idiots voted into office.

So far their stragedy of stirring up idiotic voters is working with end-times-like efficiency.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
This is what got me thinking.

But did they break an American law?

I will define break for here.

1) The law exists
2) it applies to the president


I want to emphasize that I am not pro-war crime or pro-bush. I am all for rewriting the constitution to address war from a 21st century perspective. But you have to go by what exists, not what you want.
Click to expand...

War crimes though are considered to be "international offences" with "universal jurisdiction". And the laws do exist and indeed were defined by the Great Powers of WWII. There the high government officials of the nazi regime were accused of various offences, and convicted. One of the offences was "Waging of Agressive War", which essentially went against the Doctrine of Westphalia by saying to sovereign states that "No, you just can't declare war whenever you feel like it."

All that being said, the "convictions" being referenced were from a Tribunal in Malaysia, gathered by a leader who could be considered "somewhat biased" against those two. That, and it is really unclear if a defence or counter argument was presented, or if it was just "the prosecution" presenting a case.

Now if either Bush or Blair was in front of the ICC that would be something different.
 
Apparently the civilized world wants overthrowing a genocidal fascist regime to be a war crime.

If that's what you want then that's what you want.
 
Virus said:
Apparently the civilized world wants overthrowing a genocidal fascist regime to be a war crime.
Click to expand...

The folks accusing the Bush admin of war crimes are not against the overthrow of genocidal fascist regimes, AFAIK. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.

The complaints are about breaking domestic and international laws, engaging in torture, etc.
 
jimtron said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "the American standard," but the Bush admin did break laws while engaged in combat (as did many administrations before and after). I doubt that most Americans want anything seriously done about it though.

eta: Bush has been found guilty of war crimes along with Tony Blair; not by the U.S. though.
Click to expand...

A mock tribunal, held by Mahathir Mohamad, a 9-11 Truther. What a surprise that Glenn Greenwald would link it without noting any problems.
 
Oh yeah. Three 9/11 linked al-Qaeda terrorists had water poured up their nose. That's the critical human rights issue of the age. Next to a few college kids getting pepper sprayed.
 
Virus said:
Oh yeah. Three 9/11 linked al-Qaeda terrorists had water poured up their nose. That's the critical human rights issue of the age. Next to a few college kids getting pepper sprayed.
Click to expand...

This thread asks is Bush committed war crimes "to the American standard," it doesn't ask anything about "critical human rights issue(s) of the age."

A senior Bush official called waterboarding illegal and well known Republican John McCain called it torture and illegal (not to mention the many Americans on the left who considered it the same). So I think there's an argument to be made that war crimes were committed "to the American standard."
 
I think you could make a case that implementing a policy of torturing detainees is a warcrime, and on that grounds you could claim Bush committed warcrimes. Other than that? No.
 
Border Reiver said:
One of the offences was "Waging of Agressive War", which essentially went against the Doctrine of Westphalia by saying to sovereign states that "No, you just can't declare war whenever you feel like it."
Click to expand...



The problem with the prohibition on waging a "War of Aggression" is that no one has ever bothered to define what a "War of Aggression" is, essentially making the prohibition meaningless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom