Politics and Philosophy: Charging the US with War Crimes

[TradeTheBeal!]

No. We're a democratic country. We are self-checking to a much further extent than a dictatorship.

This statement is amusing in it's innocence. We are neither democratic (by this, I expect you mean that the will of the people is the ultimate will) nor self-checking (by this, I expect you mean that the press will control the flow of information). We live in a country at war - with itself and broadly beyond it's borders - and a country at war is a country subject to a dictator's rule.

The UN can do nothing to us as long as we are a member of the Security Council. However, how long will we let the UN be party to our imperialism. The future for America may be lonely and bloody without the UN

[luckydevil]

NattyLight, I agree with a lot of your post, but let me add my point of view to this discussion

The rise of big business in this country is directly tied to the rise of big government. If you really want to get serious about confronting big business, folks on you side of the aisle have to get serious about confronting big government.

This is where I separate from leftists. Many leftists tend to view government as a solution to corporatism and corporations as the cause, while I view government as the cause and corporations as a symptom. I don't share your benevolent view of the state.

[Crazyhorse1]

It is absolutely certain that the United States has committed war crimes with the full knowledge and instigation of the Bush administration. At this point, aspects of the fact are actually confessed and most are easily proved, being specific violations exercised as policy.

Will Bush be charged and convicted?

He can be charged and convicted in the United States or turned over for trial and conviction at the Hague. He can also be kidnapped from the United States and legally tried and convicted for war crimes in another country. If Bush is convicted of crimes here, which would seen certain unless he is given a pardon, he could then be turned over to another country for trial.

It is incorrect to think that the U.S. won't turn Bush over to international authorities.

Bush is one of the most hated men in the U.S. and in the world and turning him over would go a long way toward solving diplomatic problems.

Turning Bush over would be just. It would restore confidence in government.

[TradeTheBeal!]

If I may add...See if this rings a bell and, if necessary, consult history to determine the fate of those that over-exert their power.

Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Others would define "Fascism" as..an union of economic and political goals/ends to the degree that neither can exist without the other, nor may social/constitutional interests be allowed to interfere.

[NattyLight]

NattyLight, I agree with a lot of your post, but let me add my point of view to this discussion

The rise of big business in this country is directly tied to the rise of big government. If you really want to get serious about confronting big business, folks on you side of the aisle have to get serious about confronting big government.

This is where I separate from leftists. Many leftists tend to view government as a solution to corporatism and corporations as the cause, while I view government as the cause and corporations as a symptom. I don't share your benevolent view of the state.

I think we're reading from the same sheet of music and I was unable to get my point across accurately because I have a hard time looking at something from a strictly "righty or lefty" point of view.

The original question was directly correlated to: Who charges / punishes big government when it doth sin? And the resounding answer in no one. Formally, anyway.

I think that his is what propagates anti-US sentiment throughout the globe; and I think that's not good, but could be the only way to maintain our current "comfort level". I think as a global power, you should be esteemed and admired by AT LEAST a majority...we're not even close. And I doubt other superpowers throughout history were either.

Philosophy: Could the US, though a social and political evolution* and influence, be not only a world superpower but also, a country that was globally admired for peace, purely respected and be a catalyst for nations of the world to connect symbiotically?

*I am using the word evolution literally. As in evolution of the mind and approach because of indepth studies of the cyclic nature of empires to eliminate, for the most part, discord with our neighbors.

[Johnny Punani2]

Doubt it, the American people wouldn't care.

welcome to fantasyland!

[Thiebear]

O.K. trying to get this back on track.

Can someone post when the winning countries in a war were brought up on charges?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/03/29/taylor.nigeria/index.html LAGOS, Nigeria (CNN) -- Former Liberian President Charles Taylor, captured while trying to flee his home-in-exile in Nigeria

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=430692006 THE HAGUE (Reuters) - A Congolese militia leader accused of conscripting children for war will be the first suspect to face trial at the International Criminal Court, the chief prosecutor of the ICC said on Saturday.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1658642005

DOZENS more British soldiers are facing the threat of prosecution for war crimes over events which occurred in Iraq during and after the invasion of the country in 2003.

After Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, announced that 11 British soldiers were to be prosecuted for the alleged abuse of Iraqi detainees, the army yesterday revealed that 176 incidents had been investigated.

I did find this: http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

wrong one though...

International War Crimes Tribunal

United States War Crimes Against Iraq

Initial Complaint

Charging

George Bush, J. Danforth Quayle, James Baker,

Richard Cheney, William Webster, Colin Powell,

Norman Schwarzkopf and Others to be named

With

Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against

Humanity and Other Criminal Acts and High Crimes in

Violation of the Charter of the United Nations,

International Law, the Constitution of the United States

and Laws made in Pursuance Thereof.

[Larry]

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of folks around here would classify me as a foaming-at-the-mouth Bush hater.

And I'm not convinced that the US has committed any "war crimes".

I do think we're torturing prisoners. But I also think there's enough wiggle room in the Geneva conventions to say the US would have a chance at winning a defense. (Although I'll grant, some of those self-agrandized "Courts of International Law" do have a tendancy to do the "the heck with what the rules say, what about 'natural law'" thing. And I don't think the "unauthorised combattant" defense is all cut and dried, either. I think a case could well be made that the US, by declaring war on terrorism, "promoted" terrorists to the status of "enemy".)

In short, as to torturing "POWs": I could see somebody trying to make a case, but I'd say a conviction is unlikely.

I'd also say the US has been running a government-sponsored international kidnapping ring known as "extrordinary rendition". Our government has illegally kidnapped foreign citizens, sometimes even from their own countries, and shipped them off to rent-a-torturers. I'd consider this to be a really strong case of violating international law, but it's not a "war crime".

As for the rest of the things that people like to throw the "war crimes" label at: those aren't war crimes, those are war, and folks are just using the "war crimes" label to try to get publicity.

Now, all of that said, while I don't think the US is guilty of any war crimes, I would say that the Bush administration is guilty of treason, because so many of their actions are crimes against the Constitution.

But that's not any of the world's business, and our country has it's own proceedures on the books for dealing with that matter, thank you very much. And the United States will deal with that matter (or not) as the American people see fit.

-----

(And I'm really enjoying, in a really black humor way, all of the folks who's immediate reaction to the term "war crimes" is to announce that we're bigger than anybody else, so there.)

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Let me say this: I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just trying to pry out feelings about the state of our union and its implications on our long term success as a nation. I feel that one element to that success (just one mind you) is that at least more than 20% of the GLOBAL community can tolerate us.

What you have to comprehend is that the measuring stick you're using (at least partially) for success is about the single worst one out there. Success/Greatness is not measured by how well liked one is. Success/Greatness is measured by knowing the difference between Right & Wrong, vocalizing those differences, and ACTING on them; whether that makes other people happy or not.

As for the UN and the international community in general.... So far as I'm concerned we need to get out of and away from as many entanglements & alliances with them as is possible.

[NattyLight]

Do you think that this perceived violation of international and domestic law is a necessary evil in order to "stay on top" as it were?

[Thiebear]

Do you think that this perceived violation of international and domestic law is a necessary evil in order to "stay on top" as it were?

Is there a point anywhere or an observation followed by either facts or recommendations? This is the most maddening way to participate in a debate... pithy comments followed by vague questions...

[Thiebear]

The United Nations:

Sudan, where government-sponsored Arab militias called Janjaweed have been slaughtering black farmers, was elected to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights over the objections of the United States. One Sudanese diplomat scoffed at the U.S. objection and pointed to the American atrocities in Iraq.»[New York Times]

Lets not use them as our measuring stick.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

It is absolutely certain that the United States has committed war crimes with the full knowledge and instigation of the Bush administration. At this point, aspects of the fact are actually confessed and most are easily proved, being specific violations exercised as policy.

Good. The point of WAR is to win. By any means necessary. To destroy the enemy physically, philosophically and culturally. No matter what it takes. I would be MORE distressed if we HADN'T ignored the Geneva Convention.

He can be charged and convicted in the United States or turned over for trial and conviction at the Hague. He can also be kidnapped from the United States and legally tried and convicted for war crimes in another country.

If Bush is convicted of crimes here, which would seen certain unless he is given a pardon, he could then be turned over to another country for trial.

I think we both know that isn't going to happen either domestically or internationally. There will be no arrest, no trial, no conviction and no punishment. If you really think otherwise, you're sorely mistaken.

It is incorrect to think that the U.S. won't turn Bush over to international authorities.

Bush is one of the most hated men in the U.S. and in the world and turning him over would go a long way toward solving diplomatic problems.

Turning Bush over would be just. It would restore confidence in government.

Why WOULD we turn him over to international authorities? We don't accept the jurisdiction of the international court over American citizens. We never have and I don't believe we ever will.

As for your comment about the diplomatic ramifications... why would we give any care about how the international community sees us. We should be trying to distance ourselves from the rest of the world, not gain inclusion in that wretched hive of scum and villiany.

[NattyLight]

Is there a point anywhere or an observation followed by either facts or recommendations? This is the most maddening way to participate in a debate... pithy comments followed by vague questions...

Well it seems to me, that yes international and domestic law must be broken in order to sustain world "leadership" but in turn, we're not leading we're just pissing the global community off because we punish countries and factions for the same activities that we are guilty of. Do I care and does this immediately effect me, I would have to say no., not really.

However, do I think that as a superpower we should lead the globe in a very different way as to initiate an evolution of peace for the futre good of our country? Absolutely.

However, if humans are always going to be a warring species, it seems as though we've hit a bookend in the evolutionary scale and that is troubling. It's troubling that my [future] children, and generations throughout our existence will not know a world without war or cut throat tactics to sustain a decent standard of living.

[AlexRS]

I doubt this would happen in terms of some kind of international body doing this to US or US leaders.

However, I can easily see a snowball-type effect if Democrats take the Congress and start digging.

It seems Republicans are stalling a lot of investigations at this point. If things start coming out, we may very well see quite a number of investigations launched into war management, government contracts, intelligence, corruption, media leaks, big oil, big pharmas, etc. I am sure many people will go down if this happens, on both Government and Business sides. It's going to be a field day for Democrats...

Hopefully some VERY tough transparency requirements for the Federal Government come out of this. Transparency in Government seems to be the only protection we can have from this type of behavior.

[Prosperity]

OT, but I would hope that as a republic our own people would try to punish war crimes.

[Burgold]

If the U.S. commits war crimes, there very well may be charges and a trial, but the trial will have no teeth. It will be sort of like censuring a Senator. A verbal slap on the wrist that adds up to nothing and lets business go on as usual. I can envision a "show" trial, but not one that ammounts to more than "shame on you" I suspect that somewhere within the imprisonment without trial or charges, secret prisons, torture, etc. the U.S. or some individuals representing the U.S. did commit war crimes. I doubt they will ever be prosecuted unless it's like the London girl who was picked as a fallguy for the AG deal.

[Crazyhorse1]

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of folks around here would classify me as a foaming-at-the-mouth Bush hater.

And I'm not convinced that the US has committed any "war crimes".

I do think we're torturing prisoners. But I also think there's enough wiggle room in the Geneva conventions to say the US would have a chance at winning a defense. (Although I'll grant, some of those self-agrandized "Courts of International Law" do have a tendancy to do the "the heck with what the rules say, what about 'natural law'" thing. And I don't think the "unauthorised combattant" defense is all cut and dried, either. I think a case could well be made that the US, by declaring war on terrorism, "promoted" terrorists to the status of "enemy".)

In short, as to torturing "POWs": I could see somebody trying to make a case, but I'd say a conviction is unlikely.

I'd also say the US has been running a government-sponsored international kidnapping ring known as "extrordinary rendition". Our government has illegally kidnapped foreign citizens, sometimes even from their own countries, and shipped them off to rent-a-torturers. I'd consider this to be a really strong case of violating international law, but it's not a "war crime".

As for the rest of the things that people like to throw the "war crimes" label at: those aren't war crimes, those are war, and folks are just using the "war crimes" label to try to get publicity.

Now, all of that said, while I don't think the US is guilty of any war crimes, I would say that the Bush administration is guilty of treason, because so many of their actions are crimes against the Constitution.

But that's not any of the world's business, and our country has it's own proceedures on the books for dealing with that matter, thank you very much. And the United States will deal with that matter (or not) as the American people see fit.

-----

(And I'm really enjoying, in a really black humor way, all of the folks who's immediate reaction to the term "war crimes" is to announce that we're bigger than anybody else, so there.)

Larry, if you read the Geneva Conventions I think you'll see there's no wiggle room for the U.S. in relation to war crimes. In relation to cluster bombs, killing civilians, to torture to waging agressive wars and extraordinary rendition the U.S. is definitively nailed.

[Johnny Punani2]

Larry, if you read the Geneva Conventions I think you'll see there's no wiggle room for the U.S. in relation to war crimes. In relation to cluster bombs, killing civilians, to torture to waging agressive wars and extraordinary rendition the U.S. is definitively nailed.

You could not be more full of ****.

[Redskins Diehard]

You could not be more full of ****.

JP you missed the post where he stated he was an "Expert on the Geneva Conventions"...surely he knows what he is talking about:laugh:

[Predicto]

Larry, if you read the Geneva Conventions I think you'll see there's no wiggle room for the U.S. in relation to war crimes. In relation to cluster bombs, killing civilians, to torture to waging agressive wars and extraordinary rendition the U.S. is definitively nailed.

No, it isn't. I'm a liberal and completely opposed to this war, but it just not that simple. FYI - I have studied international law and was an editor of an international law journal in Law School.

Do not let well-meaning activist interpretations of international law standards mislead you. International law is notoriously squishy. Only in the most egregious cases (such as genocide) is it clear what the definitive answer is. Nor is it appropriate to judge the US on a tougher standard than any other countries. Thus, while it is true that the US has killed lots of civilians in this war, it is also true that the US goes out if its way NOT to kill civilians to an extraordinary degree. And while it is not appropriate to wage aggressive wars, it may be argued that war to enforce UN resolutions are not such wars. Even the torture is not attributable to the US unless you can demonstrate that the government has a deliberate policy of torture - atrocities have happened in every war since time began.

In sum, we are not "definitively nailed."

[Johnny Punani2]

No, it isn't. I'm a liberal and completely opposed to this war, but it just not that simple. FYI - I have studied international law and was an editor of an international law journal in Law School.

Do not let well-meaning activist interpretations of international law standards mislead you. International law is notoriously squishy. Only in the most egregious cases (such as genocide) is it clear what the definitive answer is. Nor is it appropriate to judge the US on a tougher standard than any other countries. Thus, while it is true that the US has killed lots of civilians in this war, it is also true that the US goes out if its way NOT to kill civilians to an extraordinary degree. And while it is not appropriate to wage aggressive wars, it may be argued that war to enforce UN resolutions are not such wars. Even the torture is not attributable to the US unless you can demonstrate that the government has a deliberate policy of torture - atrocities have happened in every war since time began.

In sum, we are not "definitively nailed."

Thank you for an honest post. One could argue the U.S. had legal justification to invade under the terms of surrender in the first gulf war.

[Predicto]

Thank you for an honest post. One could argue the U.S. had legal justification to invade under the terms of surrender in the first gulf war.

Thank you. I try to be honest in all of my posts (even though you and I generally disagree).

[Crazyhorse1]

No, it isn't. I'm a liberal and completely opposed to this war, but it just not that simple. FYI - I have studied international law and was an editor of an international law journal in Law School.

Do not let well-meaning activist interpretations of international law standards mislead you. International law is notoriously squishy. Only in the most egregious cases (such as genocide) is it clear what the definitive answer is. Nor is it appropriate to judge the US on a tougher standard than any other countries. Thus, while it is true that the US has killed lots of civilians in this war, it is also true that the US goes out if its way NOT to kill civilians to an extraordinary degree. And while it is not appropriate to wage aggressive wars, it may be argued that war to enforce UN resolutions are not such wars. Even the torture is not attributable to the US unless you can demonstrate that the government has a deliberate policy of torture - atrocities have happened in every war since time began.

In sum, we are not "definitively nailed."

The use of cluster bombs is specifically prohibited. Also, it can be shown in a court of law that torture was policy, and that manufacturing a case for war was deliberate. Nailed. Consider the evidence.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The use of cluster bombs is specifically prohibited. Also, it can be shown in a court of law that torture was policy, and that manufacturing a case for war was deliberate. Nailed. Consider the evidence.

Gee, so we used the munitions necessary to get the job done, we treated our enemies like enemies, and after having determined that Iraq's government needed to go away we did what was necessary to ensure that happened.

I'm failing to see the problem with this.