George Bush is a War Criminal Because The Invasion of Iraq Was A Crime
Given the evidence it is impossible to argue that George Bush is not a war criminal. To do so simple marks you as a mindless partisan with a haughty disregard for the notion that there is such a thing as “objective truth.”
second link is broken.
I think that Vincent Bugliosi has a good idea. Let’s try him for murder. It really only takes on state AG to make it happen.
TNR (yes that TNR) actually had a great article on this in June. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff) says:
“Haynes, Feith, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales and–at the apex–Addington, should never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel. They broke the law; they violated their professional ethical code. In the future, some government may build the case necessary to prosecute them in a foreign court, or in an international court.”
On to Paraguay, Dick!
Give it up. I read the memo, it is nothing that indicates anything of the sort. It was a legally authorized action and lives are being saved because of it. The thug killers who were killing people by the hundred thousand buried in mass graves have finally been defeated. We should celebrate not go some insane route.
David,
Given your breezy comment, I stand by my observation that you have a haughty disrgard for the notion that there is such a thing as “objective truth.”
I hate to have to disagree Jason, but words mean something.
a. The end of the 1991 Gulf War was by ceasefire, not and end to the war. Like North Korea, in 2003 a state of war still existed between the US and Iraq. That is what ceasefire means. (Here is the UN resolution http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm )
Ceasefire : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceasefire
A ceasefire (or truce) is a temporary stoppage of a war or any armed conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions.
b. If you violate the ceasefire, the war is back on. That again is what ceasefire means.
c. Iraq was in violation of at least two provisions of the 1991 ceasefire:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/13/iraq.garyyounge
I was in Kuwait when one of the overly far ranging Ababil-100s nearly hit our Command Center in Camp Doha. There is not disputing the fact that this was a material breach of the ceasefire.
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities (missiles still in existence in 2003 clearly were retained in violation of the ceasfire agreement).
Also shooting at US and British planes in the “No Fly Zone” is also a clear violation of the 1991 ceasefire. Hostile action on the part of Iraq is also grounds for voiding the ceasefire.
You can say the war was poorly handled or ill concieved, but you cannot say it was illegal under international law. Unless, of course, resolution 687 is just a meaningless piece of paper and international law is what the secretary general wants it to be.
Saddam got nailed under the international version of Al Capone getting nailed for tax evasion instead of murder. They got him on what they could get him on.
Saddam was guilty of a ceasefire violation, period. Hate Bush all you want, but he is not guilty of starting an illegal war. The current Gulf War started under perfectly legal circumstances.
I love when liberals talk about objective truth!
Iraq was in breach of UN resolution 687, the ceasefire agreement that ended Gulf I.
8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
In 2003 they still possessed missiles in breach of the ceasefire:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/13/iraq.garyyounge
If your country is violating the ceasefire agreement, the state of war is resumed with no reason to go back and get another declaration.
Or does the agreement signed have no objective meaning?
Capone got nailed on tax evasion, Saddam got nailed on material breach of the ceasefire agreement. There never was any further reason to justify resumption of hostilities.
Actually, the first time Iraqi ADA units fired at US and British war planes enforcing the no fly zone there was a breach of the ceasefire. Clinton could have gone to war, and almost did in 1998 (Operation Desert Fox).
There is no basis for your supposition.
Vero said, “There never was any further reason to justify resumption of hostilities.”
Umm… how about bin Laden? He seems like a good reason not to resume hostilities in Iraq.
We are talking international law, not common sense. If having no common sense was a violation of international law, then how many US Presidents would be in violation?
The question was is George W. Bush guilty of war crimes under international law for resuming hostilities in Iraq.
Regardless of your feelings about the war the answer is no. Just like no matter how you feel about human rights, the UN made Libya the chair of the commission. The facts are the facts.
The entire ceasefire resolution:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
So 4100+ dead soldiers is a small price to pay to eliminate a missile that has a range 33km more than it should?
Not to mention that that missile had nothing to do with the invasion. And certainly a missile with a 183km range is no threat to us.
The reasons they ginned up to go to war with Iraq turned out to be spectacularly wrong.
The military action in Kosovo was also “illegal.” Just ask Wes Clark.
Therefore, Bill Clinton is also a war criminal. To say otherwise simple [sic] marks you as a mindless partisan with a haughty disregard for the notion that there is such a thing as “objective truth.”
The Ababil-100s with extended range were a concern of mine, as we were targeted in Camp Doha a half dozen times by those missiles with the greater range.
Still, you miss the point. Was the invasion illegal under international law. Ceasefire violation voids the ceasefire.
I do not need to argue the merits of the war. I wear a KIA bracelet with the name of one of my Battalion’s soldiers killed in 2004. I want peace more than you know. But that wasn’t the question.
Saddam violated the ceasefire numerous times, both in the weapons he possessed and by attacking US and British warplanes.
The answer to the question stated is no, no matter how much hand wringing and emoting you do.
Bottom line, if you don’t like how the UN rules work, go out and form your own ineffective gaggle of third world nitwits and make up rules where you can find someone guilty of something because you feel like it.
It will have roughly the same power to influence world events as the UN has.
Was the invasion illegal under international law
And when you’ve made up intelligence to sell the thing to the international community (much less to your own citizens) and then ginned up convoluted rationales to dismiss the requirements of the Geneva Conventions you are certainly getting on towards the kid of illegal that gets you to The Hague.
Saddam violated the ceasefire and Bill Clinton and Tony Blair bombed the hell out of Iraq in retaliation. But the missles were not the reason to go to war — it was the nonexistent WMDs which it turns out weren’t there but they knew weren’t there.
Mr. Pinochet might have some interesting perspective on facing a world that thinks you’ve transgressed against it.
V.,
What other countries have violated UN resolutions?
Again, you miss the point.
There was no need to “sell” anything to the international community. Just because nobody chose to resume hostilities after violations does not mean they could not. The justifications were clear violations of UN ceasefire agreements.
Just because GW Bush tried to get everyone to go along with his plan doesn’t mean he had to.
You can be a liar and a cheat and the most venal politician outside of Idi Amin but unless you violate the rules we are talking about, you are not a war criminal, which is the point of the thread.
You can call the president any number of things, but if you call him a war criminal you will be incorrect.
Many have. This particular resolution was not the standard “we resolve that the UN really hates Israel”, but was a technical document, a ceasefire agreement, with consequences for violation.
I personally think the UN is only slightly more important than Mothers Against Drunk Driving or the Peace Corps, but its resolutions are the basis for the false accusation of war crimes.
Were this thread a discussion of the necessity of the war or the efficient waging of the war, that is one thing.
But that was not the question.
Iraq had the misfortune to be run by someone who thought he could moon the US in violation of a ceasefire agreement, in an off-year election.
Saddam and the UN assumed Bush II was not serious about his threats, just like Bush I and Clinton. He was wrong.
But still, shooting up a country in violation of ceasefire agreements in order to score political points might be reprehensible, but it is still not a war crime. War crime, like any other term, has an actual meaning.
And the actual war phase itself was relatively bloodless. We could have slaughtered every Shia conscript and Sunni Fetaeen between Um Qasar and Baghdad that raised a rifle and inflicted 250,000 dead like Gulf I, but we were not going for slaughter, but regieme change.
The post war occupation, that hasn’t gone as well.
Again, not the debate at hand.
The UN had to be sold on voting on the authorization resolutions, which included all of the made up intelligence on Iraq’s presumed violations. BushCo choose to try to lie his way to international support, rather than claim the automatic state of war that you cite here.
The more important point is that Downing St memo clearly notes that BushCo made a decision to go to war in the spring of 2002. Certainly well before the weapons inspectors found the out of range missiles in 2003. So the decision for war was taken with no provocation, really, and the task after that was to find the reasons.
Which they proceeded to make up.
Actually, if he violated UN resolutions, then the UN could have acted. Our decision to go in without UN approval is tantamount to vigilantism.
If my neighbor is breaking a law, the fact that the police refuse to arrest him does not give me the right to take him by force.
Willing blindness is fun for kids who want to get in just one more “trick or treat” – but for full grown adults, as we see here, it isn’t pretty.
These 12%ers, I think, will go to thier grave thinking that the war was legal. Once you’ve taken that leap of faith I guess it is tough to leap back into reality.
Willing blindness is fun for kids who want to get in just one more “trick or treat” – but for full grown adults, as we see here, it isn’t pretty.
These 12%ers, I think, will go to thier grave thinking that the war was legal. Once you’ve taken that leap of faith I guess it is tough to leap back into reality.
Although he still clings to the fantasy that it was legal, at least Hube allows that it was a bad idea. Which is more than you can say for some of our commenters.
Liberalgeek,
Look up ceasefire and what violations of a ceasefire mean. We did not need an additional resolution. The original state of war still existed. If Saddam wanted to be safe and rely on UN inaction, he should have negotiated a formal peace. Words have meaning.
Cassandra,
The missiles were one violation. Shooting at our planes was another.
All of this still goes back to Jason’s finding of the center of the argument:
“Given your breezy comment, I stand by my observation that you have a haughty disrgard for the notion that there is such a thing as “objective truth.”
All of the “but it should mean” dissembling means nothing. When we crossed the border, Iraq was in violation of the missile portion of the treaty and the no-fly zone part of the treaty.
The fact the Bush administration wanted to go to war a year before is irrelevant. When they crossed the border, they had every legal justification.
Actually, I just went back to read the memo and they state 3 legal bases for the war, and does not include the one v is arguing for here. So even the real legal eagles (using that term loosely) weren’t interested in that angle.
This country has been badly weakened by willing blindness.
Jason,
You are not disputing anything. Do you actually have something to counter my argument?
And a discussion of if the war was a good or bad idea was not your thesis. it was that George Bush is a war criminal because the war was illegal.
Prove your supposition. Halloween has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
It’s a fascinating piece of sophistry above. The resolution cited above occurred in the UN but we are asked to believe the DETERMINATION that Iraq was
1. In material breach of the resolution and
2. That the APPROPRIATE sanction for the breach was invasion and occupation (for heaven’s sake)
was something a handful of nations could do unilaterally w/o further Security Council authorization. That’s poppycock. It’s also contrary to the UN charter.
Besides, attacking a nation on the basis of preventing it from evetually becoming a threat (which was nonsense in Iraq’s case anyhow) instead of it being an imminent threat is a violation of international law. George Bush = war criminal.
Beyond going to war, there are the war crimes committed by the US during the occupation w/ Bush’s apparent blessing. Like turning back males trying to flee Falujah before the US incinerated large swaths of it w/ phosphorous bombs. Then there is torturing people in case we’ve forgotten. George Bush is a war criminal in spades.
The one I am arguing is perfectly within the scope of the agreements signed. I have pointed out an error in your supposition. The current Iraq war was perfectly legal.
I am not Dana Garrett,
Is a ceasefire agreement nulified by breach of said agreement? Yes. If said agreement is nulified, the state of war is resumed.
Having to argue tactical decisions as if George Bush is on a satphone telling arty guys what loads to use in Falujah points to the weakness of your central point.
Who signed the cease-fire agreement? The US or the UN? To say that this administration went to war to protect the integrity of the UN is laughable.
“a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990)”
The US was a signatory of that document and was bound by it under international law, as was Iraq.
Nobody is saying that there could not have been ill intentions and blatant violation of the spirit of any agreement. But that is not the basis for legal action.
“The one I am arguing is perfectly within the scope of the agreements signed. ”
Sorry, Vero, but you haven’t demonstrated anything beyond an ability to pick & choose evidence convenient to your case while ignoring an entire corpus of international law that should alter your narrow reading of ONLY ONE resolution. Try reading the UN charter and see if–I must repeat–the US could ON ITS OWN w/o the UN determine that Iraq was
1. In material breach of the resolution and
2. That the APPROPRIATE sanction for the breach was invasion and occupation (for heaven’s sake)
Nowhere in jurisprudence is one law read in absence of other laws especially constitutional decrees like the UN charter.
Sorry, but your case doesn’t stand up to wider scrutiny.
The previous declaration of war, never by treaty annuled, is back in force if the ceasefire that halts hostilities is nulified.
What does ceasefire mean? There was no peace treaty.
The UN adopted the resolution to go to war with Iraq in 1991. This resolution remained in force after the war and was suspended by resolution 687. There was no formal peace process.
It is the basis for legal action, especially when you’ve repeatedly ignored international law to get to your end state.
The US (nor did any of the coalition of the willing) did not go to war with Iraq on the basis you cite. Trying this argument after the fact — largely to justify this incredible mistake — is taking Insurance Rules abit too far, I think.
OK, then can you explain why the UN didn’t enforce their cease-fire? The facts on the ground had not changed since the end of hostilities. George Bush acted capriciously in his attack on Iraq. He selectively enforced a violation of a cease-fire agreement between a group that the US was involved in and the country that made his Dad look bad.
He has no more right to act unilaterally to enforce UN resolutions than Mexico, Cambodia or Liberia.
“Having to argue tactical decisions as if George Bush is on a satphone telling arty guys what loads to use in Falujah points to the weakness of your central point.”
Tactical decision? LOL! My weakness? LOL! If anything, all you have shown is that you are a 1 trick pony. You got one resolution and you ride it exclusively.
It’s illegal to not allow people to flee a scene of battle.
They turned back the men days before the attack. It was in the press. So Bush had to know. Stop winging it. Argue the facts, not stuff you are spinning out of your head.
Attacking the hospital in Fallujah was also a war crime. Sorry your resolution doesn’t address that fact either.
“if the ceasefire that halts hostilities is nulified.”
who gets to declare that and when did it happen and what is the appropriate sanction…you haven’t addressed any of that.
sorry….
I hate to brimg pure cynisim to the argumemt but the liklihood of a war crimes trial for Bush and Co happening has less of a chance than a trial in the Us Senate against the same for charges brought against them by the US house of Reps in an Impeachment Resolution
Bush 41 was not made to look bad by Iraq one reason we were involved is that they were suspected of trying to assasinate him in Kuwait
Too true geek. These nation builders like that we are the world’s police I guess. Unlibertarian of them but consistency is not a strong suit.
Which reminds me of one more criminal thing from the Downing street memo that I’m surprised our libertarians give Bush a pass on.
The meo says, There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. while not a war crime it is unforgivable criminal stupidity given the outcome.
Yet, we have so many commenters here who simply don’t give a dang.
I’m not saying that there is going to be a war crimes trial, I’m saying one would be in order. And I think most people who are willing to look at the facts agree with that sentiment.
What?? Bush had no plan??
Pandora, did you know that Obama is black?
V- I just pulled two of your comments out of the spam folder.
Whaaaaat!!!
Jason
Have said it before and will say it again: you’re right that 90% of the libertarian leaning Republicans and as many as 40% of the Libertarians (in a big-L sense) did exactly what you said: rolled over and played lapdog.
Unfortunately, so did lots of people.
Which is why we won’t see war crimes trials or impeachment in the US, because I would be willing to bet you that Bush-Cheney can produce documents showing a lot more prominent people in both parties knew when they voted that the case was weak. The Senate Dems other than Obama stand to lose almost as much.
That having been said, I think there is at least a 20% chance of a future Iraqi government attempting to bring charges in front of the Hague (I don’t know the international law here, could anyone but the invaded country bring that charge?)
The larger issue looking forward is that we still have two presidential candidates who–even in light of the Iraq/Afghanistan debacle–won’t foreswear American imperialism as a foreign policy. I think Obama genuinely means well, but his collected foreign policy statements (check On The Issues) and this trip across the globe have pretty thoroughly shown in an objective sense that he’s a complete lightweight on foreign policy.
I’ll duck now.
I think Obama is treading carefully on foreign policy. He seems to be playing to win – which is refreshing. The goal of this trip (as defined pretty much by McCain) was to be “looking Presidential”. Fine. He had to go. He had to not make too many waves. A gaffe could have spelled his downfall.
Obama understands the margins… it’s how he won the primary.
cassandra m wrote:
Would you agree that Valerie Plame Wilson isn’t really a fan of the Bush Administration? Yet, Mrs Wilson, famousl;y “outed” as a CIA agent working on Iraqi WMD, wrote in her book Fair Game, that her department was completely surprised that banned weapons were not found in Iraq.
On page 98-99, she wrote:
My rather long — and not terribly charitable — book review is here.
No war crimes trials would be appropriate, because no war crimes were committed. Under the constitutional system of the United States, President Bush sought congressional authority to use force against Iraq; the Congress granted him that authority, by a rather wide margin.
That is all the legal authority needed; there is no such thing as “international law” to which we are subject, and “war crimes” are simply the excuse given by the winners to hang the losers.
Glad to see you kept going without me.
More about the violations of the ceasefire and why they are important:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
And by the way Dana, have you been there? I do not need to spin anything. I have actually convoyed Iraq from Al Assad to Um Qasar, Baghdad to Talil. Bad guys shoot at you from crowds and plant IEDs in populated areas. It is easy to judge from Delaware.
Not that any of this has anything to do with war crimes that are not based on a legal invasion.
so was Clinton a war criminal for going into Kosovo? Somalia?
“…Try reading the UN charter and see if–I must repeat–the US could ON ITS OWN w/o the UN determine that Iraq was
1. In material breach of the resolution and
2. That the APPROPRIATE sanction for the breach was invasion and occupation (for heaven’s sake)…”
Fuck the UN! They are nothing more than a bunch of worthless thieves! Many of its members do not (and did not long before this war) give a flying fuck about America or American lives.
Nobody cares if Clinton destroyed drug plants in Sudan or civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia. Liberals like nonsensical wars that have nothing to do with anything and conservatives hated Clinton for being a 60s leftover, not for dropping bombs.
And Serbs are too white to be oppressed and Orthodox Christianity isn’t as edgy as Islam. Boring.
‘No war crimes trials would be appropriate, because no war crimes were committed. Under the constitutional system of the United States, President Bush sought congressional authority to use force against Iraq; the Congress granted him that authority, by a rather wide margin.’
Absolutely! A margin, by the way, that was widened by many of our liberal, democrat heroes.
Ahhh, the old…”but, but, but Bill Clinton..”. defense.
It never gets old. Nor does it in anyway adress anything that has been said here about George Bush, but still, who does not love the “..but, but, but Bill Clinton..” line of reasoning?
Gitmo is a war crime! Abu Ghareb and 16 other little gitmos in Iraq and Afganistan are war crimes.
Scott Ritter, stated “there was no wmd in Iraq” it was all destroyed by the inspectors. The democrats knew it and the republicans knew it.
It took the International Court 14 years to get Pinochet!
” Liberals like nonsensical wars that have nothing to do with anything …”
Like Grenada?
Liz,
I guess the inspectors missed the illegal missiles. Did they look under the couch?
Abu Ghraib is a detention facility and a “life support area” between Baghada, Faluja and Ramadi. And it has a decent dining facility.
Bad people did bad things there and went to jail for it. Bad people do bad things in the county lock-up. Abu Ghraib was a British built prison complete with plastic shredders and acid baths for executions, and a dining area for Saddam’s cronies to watch the festivities. We shut those things down.
Soldiers who violate the law of war should be punished. Liz-steria gets us no closer to that goal.
Grenada? A war? More like a live fire training exercise.
I hate to make light of it, but 19 military dead is the casualty count for a long holiday weekend’s drunk driving incidents.
Hey, V, you asked for an example. Laugh at Grenada, but we all know it was simply a diversion away from the deaths of 241 servicemen in Beirut.
But was it a war crime? It annoyed the Brits but the date of the invasion is a Holiday in Grenada (Thanksgiving).
Somebody better tell them they should be mad about violations of the UN charter.
Iraq is not a signatory to the ICC, but Afghanistan is. Meaning that even if there was a trial petitioned, Iraq probably could not bring one.
But the Spanish brought the charges against Pinochet that finally nailed him.
The Economist has a great article on how immunity for country leaders is slipping away.
So is there a new meme? Bush = Hitler is now Bush = Pinochet?
I actually kinda like it. It shows a deeper level of thought than one expects from hysterics.
A. Bundy,
Iraqis didn’t kill any Americans on American soil.
V.,
If I’m not mistaken, the US and British planes that were fired upon prior to the war were flying outside the no-fly zone. To me, that’s provocation and likely a breach of the cease fire agreement, no?
Meatball,
Not sure. But go to globalsecurity.org for plenty of stories about Iraqi violations of the No Fly Zone:
November 17, 2002
UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND — Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft today. Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites northeast of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone.
Coalition aircraft responded in self-defense to the Iraqi attacks by dropping precision guided munitions on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system.
All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.
Coalition aircraft have been enforcing the Northern No-Fly Zone for more than 11 years. Since Dec. 28, 1998, Saddam Hussein has opted to challenge this enforcement by firing at coalition aircraft with surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and anti-aircraft artillery and by targeting them with radar. Operation Northern Watch aircraft respond in self-defense to these threats, while continuing to enforce the No-fly Zone.
V.,
One more question. Were the no-fly zones part of the cease fire agreement?
Actually they were extrapolated from the UN resolution to protect the Kurds and Shia. Saddam’s minions liked to attack those groups from the air (UN resolution 688 http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm )
The no fly zones were established to prevent wholesale slaughter of those groups from the air. Since it was effective, some in the UN didn’t like them.
They prefered decisive action, like UN resolution 997, establishing that they were against the deaths of 750,000 in Rwanda and asked that everybody kiss and make up and extra special promise never to do it again.
Your comments would make more sense if they actually adressed the point of the post.
Don’t worry Vero. You’ll get the hang of it.
“One more question. Were the no-fly zones part of the cease fire agreement?”
Question was answered. I have been addressing the point of the post the entire time.
Your point?
Extrapolated? Man, that’s a big word. Does it mean something like “it means whatever we say it means when we say it means it?”
In other words, we will finish this when the American people can stomach it.
Saddam was a nasty person, but to use the “Clinton did it defense,” if insurgents in one’s own country wanted to overthrow the government (or secede from the union), surely, the government would respond with deadly force. Collateral damage be damned. As you, I think said, “war crimes are determined by the victors.”
I could be wrong because I don’t pay much attention to it, but I believe any case for war crimes charges rests with the rendition and torture policies, not the invasion per se.
The case against Bush for allegedly basing the invasion on known lies is a case for Congress to investigate through the impeachment process. It’s pretty clear Congress has no stomach for that.
Scroll up. That was Dana.
And again scroll up. There is no Cinton defense from me. I specifically said nobody cared,which is entirely true. Serbs were too white to be oppressed and most people were not paying attention to the Sudan debacle.
I didn’t even address Somalia, as it started under Bush I and had wide international support.
Use that arrow up button on the right of the keyboard if you forget who said what.
Extrapolate is too big for you. Sorry to hear that.
“And by the way Dana, have you been there? I do not need to spin anything. I have actually convoyed Iraq from Al Assad to Um Qasar, Baghdad to Talil. Bad guys shoot at you from crowds and plant IEDs in populated areas. It is easy to judge from Delaware.”
Totally irrelevant and a sign of desperation. You’ve been there; people shot at those who illegally invaded their country and that is supposed to lend even a scintilla of credence to your argument or your blithe disregard to the questions I have put to you or your inept understanding of the BODY of international law like the UN charter? Obviously, being there did nothing for your ability to reason.
I’m starting to get the impression that you aren’t an honest seeker of the truth but a spin doctor.
Hey Al,
I was making a point that the war was a crime. Ergo, “war crime.” that is a point that the delagation from Wingnutia eager missed entierly.
Anyway, Bush is a criminal where it comes to having started this war under false pretenses and (of course) having enaged the country in actual on the books war crimes.
“Saddam was a nasty person, but to use the “Clinton did it defense,” if insurgents in one’s own country wanted to overthrow the government (or secede from the union), surely, the government would respond with deadly force.”
That sounds like a justification for bombing the Kurds and Shia. I hope I am incorrect.
” Under the constitutional system of the United States, President Bush sought congressional authority to use force against Iraq; the Congress granted him that authority, by a rather wide margin.
That is all the legal authority needed; there is no such thing as “international law” to which we are subject, and “war crimes” are simply the excuse given by the winners to hang the losers.”
This is pure hogwash. International law is ratified by treaty. The US constitution calls treaties “the supreme law of the land.” By violating treaties, Bush violated the constitution. He should be impeached, immediately arrested, led away in handcuffs and ankle chains, sent to the Hague to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Nothing could be more clear.
Dana,
So explain it. Bush is a war criminal because, though there is ample evidence Iraq was in breach of multiple resolutions including the ceasefire that ended the last war, he decided to merely get the approval of congress rather than wait until the end of time for the UN to act?
Am I close?
“He should be impeached, immediately arrested, led away in handcuffs and ankle chains, sent to the Hague to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Nothing could be more clear.”
You should start holding your breath now.
“But was it a war crime? It annoyed the Brits but the date of the invasion is a Holiday in Grenada (Thanksgiving).”
Listen to this guy. Because it was a small island nation whose sovereignty was violated and it took little time to violate it, it doesn’t count w/.this callous piece of crap. You are really something else, mister. Your sense of right and wrong is quite immature. You’re offensive.
“So explain it. Bush is a war criminal because, though there is ample evidence Iraq was in breach of multiple resolutions including the ceasefire that ended the last war, he decided to merely get the approval of congress rather than wait until the end of time for the UN to act?
Am I close?”
Look, stop caricaturing my argument. Look at the first 2 -3 comments I made. Deal w/ what I said or don’t address me. I’m catching on to you. You don’t deal w/ what people say because you can’t handle that.
I love honest debate, but you are not honest.
And you look like you’re eating Tinkerbell in your profile photo.
You my “progressive” friend are badly in need of some real life in your life if you think I’m callous. Get out of the house a bit and see how unpleasant real life is.
The objective truth that J is using is a Daily Kos from an unnamed blogger using supposedly secret memos.
I suggest you read the War resoultution
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Vero is right there that under the violation of the cease fire that this would have been legal to continue the 1991 war. But Bush decided to go the extra step and get Congress to declare war.
The lack of honesty and use of original sources that DG and Cassandra and Jason is illuminating.
Bush did not violate International law and Congress voted the Iraq War resolution.
Congress is just as culpable as Bush for the war.
You guys don’t get it. The War Resolution was passed based on a fabric of lies.
What is so tough about this?
^ Nothing. Congress was privy to the same (faulty) intelligence as the President, and they came to the same conclusion he did.
Dana Garrett: I think if you think if you check, and Senator Biden backed this up in front of a small group…that they did not give him permission to go to war. They told him to go to the UN with the case for war, and come back to Congress for a declaration.
He neither got the UN’s backing, nor did he come back to Congress for a vote for war…He did a pre-emptive strike against a soverign nation that did nothing to this country. It was all about oil, it was planned in the 1990’s –read the Project for a New American Century.
Kucinch on the floor again tomorrow…with impeachment.
The outing of Valerie Plame is a one reason for his impeachment, and there is no question that Bush/Cheney/Rove/Libby “outed” her to get even with Joe Wilson.
The fly-overs under Clinton were illegal as well, the UN never gave a mandate to Britian and the US for those fly overs…the fly overs were meant to contain Saddam which were effective. The main reason that even if he did have wmd, he couldnt move them….satelitte images were focused on that country. Those images could read a license plate!
“that they did not give him permission to go to war. They told him to go to the UN with the case for war, and come back to Congress for a declaration.”
That’s flat out wrong. The Resolution was to authorize the President to use military force against Iraq, not to “go to the UN and come back to Congress for a Declaration of War.” Where do you get this stuff? We haven’t declared war since WWII, why would we have suddenly started again with Iraq?
And since when do member nations have to go to the UN before engaging in any kind of military action?
Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?JosefStalinJosef Stalin