In another thread, Gyaos poses the following question:
To see if GWB can be charged with war crimes, one must first understand what war crimes actually are. The constitution of the Nuremburg International Military Tribunal (1945) states:
The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.
From this definition then, I think it'd be pretty hard to make the charge of war crime stick. Arguably one could try to make a case for deporting people from Afghanistan ("deportation ... for any other purpose of civilian population"). I mean, over a year later some of those guys are still stuck in Guantanamo Bay with no end in sight. But as for the invasion of Iraq, the destruction inflicted by US forces was, perhaps, militarily justified. If you want to invade a country, that's probably the way to do it.
It does seem pretty clear though that there's a case fo Crimes Against Peace.
But at a practical level, who's going to charge GWB with war crimes? And who's going to try him? The Military Tribunal of Nuremburg was especially created by the mutual concensus of the Allies. There is probably no equivalent today.
On a related note, there's an interesting opinion piece here that discusses how the US can try its own case for Iraqui war crimes.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030404_fletcher.html
The author of this piece concludes that the US should really go back to the UN Security Council (that outdated, outmoded institution that the US didn't need when war was declared) to seek a forum for trying war crime proceedings.
I was going to reply in that thread but it seems to have degraded so I'm starting a new thread instead.Gyaos said:
To see if GWB can be charged with war crimes, one must first understand what war crimes actually are. The constitution of the Nuremburg International Military Tribunal (1945) states:
The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.
From this definition then, I think it'd be pretty hard to make the charge of war crime stick. Arguably one could try to make a case for deporting people from Afghanistan ("deportation ... for any other purpose of civilian population"). I mean, over a year later some of those guys are still stuck in Guantanamo Bay with no end in sight. But as for the invasion of Iraq, the destruction inflicted by US forces was, perhaps, militarily justified. If you want to invade a country, that's probably the way to do it.
It does seem pretty clear though that there's a case fo Crimes Against Peace.
But at a practical level, who's going to charge GWB with war crimes? And who's going to try him? The Military Tribunal of Nuremburg was especially created by the mutual concensus of the Allies. There is probably no equivalent today.
On a related note, there's an interesting opinion piece here that discusses how the US can try its own case for Iraqui war crimes.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030404_fletcher.html
The author of this piece concludes that the US should really go back to the UN Security Council (that outdated, outmoded institution that the US didn't need when war was declared) to seek a forum for trying war crime proceedings.
