Toronto Escorts

If Bush Loses ???

Hugger

Jay in Brampton
Mar 22, 2003
158
0
0
Brampton
Do you think he could be charged for war crimes? His reasons for invading seem to have faded. If Saddam doesn't make it tp trial what will he stand on? Not my assumption, just a recent conversation I thought I'd toss out there?
H
 

iam0234

Member
Aug 19, 2002
387
0
16
Toronto
In the American legal system, Sadam has a case against Bush for a) Libel, b) forceful entry without a warrant, c) wilful destruction of private property, d) foul play causing deaths and bodily injuries, and e) causing nuisance in public - something like that. LOL.
 

xarir

Retired TERB Ass Slapper
Aug 20, 2001
3,765
0
36
Trolling the Deleted Threads Repository
The concept of a war crime is that an individual can be held accountable for the actions of a state or those of soldiers of a state. The standard definition of "war crime" comes from article 147 of the fourth Geneva Convention. According to this article, a war crime is the:

wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

In the case of Afghanistan, the US will argue that Taliban soldiers were "illegal combatants" and thus could not be considered protected persons under the law. This is of course a load of crap, but the term "illegal combatants" was chosen for the specific reason of getting around the Geneva Conventions and subsequent treatment of prisoners. (Deportation to Guantanamo, lack of legal representation, holding for undue length of time without pressing specific charges ...)

In the case of Iraq, one must investigate whether any of the following occured:

- Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
- Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
- Seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science
- Plunder of public or private property
- Murder
- Extermination
- Enslavement
- Deportation
- Imprisonment
- Torture
- Rape
- Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds

For the first 4 points I think it's fair to say that the US military took reasonable precautions to ensure compliance. Although there were (and still are) firefights, bombardment etc, it can be reasonably argued that the use of force is militarily justified in these cases. (Note that I say militarily and not necessarily morally.) As for the remaining points, one could easily focus on Imprisonment and on Torture. The well documented cases of prisoner abuse in the now infamous Abu Ghraib prison feed straight into this.

So at first glance, it seems that GWB could be brought up on war crime charges, assuming someone out there has the balls to take the case before the World Court (which the US doesn't recogninze in any case).
 

xarir

Retired TERB Ass Slapper
Aug 20, 2001
3,765
0
36
Trolling the Deleted Threads Repository
DonQuixote said:

Who is more culpable? Those that issue the orders
or those that pull the trigger!!
Those who issue the orders are most culpable. A commander is responsible for the conduct of the troops below him. Although an individual soldier is responsible for his own actions, the ultimate legal responsibility lies with the commander. So while it holds that a troop could be held liable for his actions, his C.O. will bear the heavier burden.
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
Depends on which war crime you wish to try him for. The lack of WMD alone are not enough to try Bush for war crimes. Afterall, Saddam had violate many of the UN resolutions against him and even was involved in scaming money from the oil for food program.
Secondly, short of genocide, war crimes are a joke and the international community knows it.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,353
4,776
113
Dream on: Being tried for war crimes is reserved for the government of countries that are defeated militarily. No US president would allow a previous administration to be tried for war crimes.
 
Didn't the Secretary-General of the UN assert that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law?

Following a Kerry win and a congressional investigation into the fuckup in Iraq, I could see Bush being put on trial.
 

ocean976124

Arrogant American Idiot
Oct 28, 2002
1,291
0
36
USA
Paul Waters said:
Didn't the Secretary-General of the UN assert that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law?

Following a Kerry win and a congressional investigation into the fuckup in Iraq, I could see Bush being put on trial.
Its still not a war crime that anyone would bother to prosecute for. The UN does nothing about the Sudan, but Bush toppling a dictator is just too much?
 

JJicq

Active member
Mar 24, 2003
457
40
28
No FUCKING WAY Bush will be charged with war crimes...

He may lose but that is a completely seperate issue.
 
Last edited:

phogNphriction

lost on a mission
May 29, 2004
136
0
0
GTA
Originally posted by
Bogus argument.

It's the individual that performs the act.
Are we talking legal or are we talking moral?

I'm an attorney. Don't give me your legal arguments.
It's individual responsibility, or am I wrong?
It's a moral and ethical argument, not a legal argument.

There were many war crimes that occured in VietNam (look up
'Tiger force' for example); the fact there were very few
prosecutions/ instances of discipline was a consequence of the
interests and sympathies of those who had the power to make
such decisons- most war crimes involved both acts of commission
and acts of ommission by various parties to the events.

Legally, responsibility is described by the chain of command, but
there is a caveat: it is recognized that the chain of command can
err in the lawfulness of the orders it decides to disseminate;
In this case, the individual is held to a 'fundamental'
standard and is expected to recognize when a duly recieved order
is in fact 'unlawful'...

The moral implications of these circumstances do not seem as clear.
As far as the 'individual' performing the act, the following must be
pondered: Is the person acting on the basis of 'free will';
Is the person's free will 'individual', or are they in fact internally
conflicted, having inconsistent, even mutually exclusive, ideas,
desires, or impulses? The question of responsibility, then, relates
to the question of agency? Is the person acting as an agent? Reacting?

The soldier's experience is a very good example of shades-of-grey;
I would assume you could find examples where the individual has almost
total conscious control over the causes-to-effects relationship of
events and is the primary agent and architect of outcomes. I assume
there are also readily available examples of soldiers who cannot be
held responsible for acts they physically carried out where their
agency is much diminished- sometimes this is incidental (fatigue, altered
mental state, trauma),
sometimes it is intentionally orchestrated (training, control of access
to information, misinformation).
 

blitz

New member
Nov 25, 2003
1,488
0
0
Toronto
If Bush Loses...

...look for Canada to support the perceived "war on terror" with $$ and people, even if that includes Iraq.

I still like Kerry over the hex from Tex but we Canadians and our government will have to deliver up our support somehow.

Remember what you wish for...

and be prepared to back it up.

Peace.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Bush War Crimes NOT that much of a Stretch

Bush's Crimes
Impeach the president? Yes. A well-documented case ties him to Abu Ghraib.


President Bush is coming to town Thursday night to debate John Kerry and try to earn your vote. But the question emerging now is not whether he should be elected but if he should be impeached for war crimes.

Remember when the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal broke with all those detestable pictures and the administration repeated that it was the fault of a "few bad apples"? Well, they were right. Thankfully, the bad apples have been identified: John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and President Bush.

Bush decided to ignore the federal War Crimes Act, which is punishable by death. But impeachment will do. It takes a very high crime to justify removing the president, especially during time of war -- even an unpopular and disastrous war like the one in Iraq. But Bush, unfortunately, has risen to that height.

more in the following link:

http://www.newtimesbpb.com/issues/2004-09-30/news/norman.html

Welcome to Bush's AmeriKKKa!!!
 

blitz

New member
Nov 25, 2003
1,488
0
0
Toronto
Canadians...

Prepare to back up our support for Kerry in some way.

It may be time for some serious Blue Helmets.

Consider.

Peace.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
mottel said:
I Like Bush, and I hope he will be the next president of the USA
Too bad he doesn't really qualify as the current one.
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,724
42
48
If Bush loses, he'll become the President of the USA, like he did last election when he lost to Gore.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
seth gecko said:
If Bush loses, he'll become the President of the USA, like he did last election when he lost to Gore.
It's looks like someone has 'leaked' Rove's game plan for 2004 out.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
2000 official election results

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

This shows that Gore did indeed win in 2000 before the GOP Supreme Court came in and staged a 'political coup' and stole the election for Dubya in a 5 to 4 vote, thereby NULLIFYING the vote of the people in the USA and NULLIFYING the 2000 election.
 
Toronto Escorts