As Bush leaves the Oval office, it is clear that the rest of the world views him quite negatively, and in some cases as a War Criminal. I could see where people in Iraq or the Middle East would view him this way, and could even see that some in America could consider him a war criminal. The guy started an unecessary war, which killed tons of innocent civilians, and nearly bankrupted our country. Starting a pre-emptive war would seem to argue in favor of him being labled a "War Criminal" that is what others who started wars were called, so.... Is Bush a War criminal? And why do you think he is or isn't one? DD
I think Bush made many grave miscalculations, and many of them were due to the people he surrounded himself with -- Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and co. But I don't think he should be put in the same class as people like Milosevic and Mobutu Sese Seko. I'm just not convinced that he had that kind of evil in his heart, as much as he does bear culpability for all that happened in the war.
If reagan didn't get the chair for what he did to E.S, then no bush is not a war criminal. Besides, he is 'american', no such thing as a war criminal.
Jeop, I hear ya, but what about the thousands of innocent lives lost because of his Iraqi war? While he may not be of the caliber of a Milosovic, starting a war that wrecks a country and kills innocent civilians may constitute being labled a War criminal. DD
No I don't think so. I am against the invasion of Iraq, think the occupation was for the most part bungled and am against many other things this Admin. has done. The problem though is that almost all of this stuff was done legally or with in a grey area where it isn't clear whether it is legal or not. For instance there was a Congressional authorization to use force in Iraq. I think the President abused that authorization and used false pretenses to get it but it was still passed and under US law the invasion was legal. While many members of the UN were opposed to the invasion of Iraq the UN neither approved it or disapproved it. There is a sound argument that the US violated the UN charter but the only body that can determine that is the UN and since the invasion they have tacitly approved the occupation by giving a mandate to coalition forces. The best argument to be made for Bush Admin. breaking the law is bypassing the FISA court on wiretaps. The only problem is that since Congress has changed the law to allow the NSA to do what Bush did then that is no longer illegal. So I agree this has been a terrible Presidency it isn't an illegal Presidency. Bush benefitted from a venal Congress and dysfunctional UN to either give many of this admin's actions the veneer of legality or failed to determine whether it was legal or not.
I think lowering the standard for intel before taking possible lethal action brings this into question. It used to be 90%. That meant that still 10% of the time Strikes might kill innocent civilians and families. Bush lowered the standard to 50%. That means half the time he might be killing civilians, and families. That comes very close to being serious war crime. I think he should get a chance to defend himself before any final determination could be made.
Yes, of course. If you don't see that by now, a recitation of the facts will do nothing but take up my time and give you another post to ignore. And what does "evil in his heart" have anything to do with anything? He's the leader of a country who not only permitted, but encouraged torture and approved of the killing of thousands of innocents during an invasion of a sovereign country that posed no immediate threat. Of course he committed war crimes... the law and history only see facts, not what you think is in a man's heart through your exposure to campaign and administrative propaganda. When he leaves office, he will not be able to leave this country... no big issue for him, since he's never been interested in the world or escaping the cocoon of people who prop him up.
We know they had no good intentions other than self aggrandizement and sheer narcissism. Mobutu, in particular, engaged in ritual killings in attempting to strengthen his stranglehold on the seat of power through the occult. These guys had no intentions of giving people freedom, spreading prosperity or in any way advancing the causes of anyone except themselves. Like I said, I think Bush bears culpability for the many bad things that happened in his administration, but I do believe he had good intentions. He was just too incompetent, and he was surrounded with the wrong set of human beings -- and we ended up with a misguided war that was prosecuted in the worst way.
If anyone deserved to go to hell for plain negligence and stupidity, it would be Bush. Is he a war criminal? I don't know.
Aren't there more innocent deaths being caused by their own terrorist attacks on their own people. They are killing themselves. Granted, the wrong reason was given for the war, but the ouster of a dictator like Sadaam is a good thing.
Yes. Pre-emptive war is a war crime, and Bush started a pre-emptive war. That being said, if I ran The Hague, I would ask for him after I got convictions of Kissinger and Albright. They are the worst American war criminals alive. Bush and Cheney aren't on their level.
Yes, but not for starting a war. For breaking Geneva Conventions to commit torture and keep prisoners, yes.
No. Intervention to overthrow a genocidal dictator is not a war crime (see Bosnia, Kosovo). rocketsjudoka pretty much sums it up perfectly. There has either been tacit approval or sufficient gray area in the legality to make it impossible to call the intervention in Iraq a war crime. There is no standard that preemptive intervention is a war crime - that's just silly.
A point of clarification: Both the no-fly zone that enabled genocide and the invasion of Iraq were "justified" by UN Resolutions. In my mind, that doesn't make them okay.
I think people in El Salvador are much better off because Reagan helped them defeat the communists and Handal's separatists there. Their people are benefitting from that with their economy being the strongest in central america today versus countries like Nicaragua and Honduras. There were atrocities committed on both sides and the current proletariat continues to protect their own interests and businesses at the expense of free trade, but its still better than if they had won.
Not that sadaam was a good guy, but he did keep the peace within that country, and judging by actions of his people, he seems a product of his environment more than anything else.
what about the millions of innocent lives lost to saddam? i hope you remember this next time you press for action on Darfur, or Zimbabwe, or some other trouble spot. Bush actually did something, Reg.
