How have Iraqis fared under the willfully criminal and brutal occupation by American-led "coalition of willing", other than "electing" a fantom government, which has no control over their sovereignty?
drummer, you are welcome to post a counter blog from some war partisan who has embedded in Iraq for the last three years since the Shock and Awe.
"willfully criminal and brutal occupation" "fantom (phantom) government" "no control over their sovereignty" All of these are too slanted to make your question answerable. Nor do I think the underlying assumption of the question would lead us to a valid conclusion of whether or not Bush is a war criminal.
Wrong. What is silly is discussing a crime that W will never be charged with. This does not mean that he is innocent of said charges. This just means that no country can force the USA to comply with the law. Pre-emptive strikes are against an international law that WE wrote. W's invasion does not even rise to the "pre-emptive" bar. W's invasion was preventive strike, based on no imminent threat from Iraq to the USA. I dn't think anything could be more clear cut. Bush is not Hitler. Bush is Bush. (Think about it. 20 years from now people will be comparing some other misguided head of state to Bush in a not so favorable light.) You can tell your grandkids what a f-up Bush was.
What 'law' are you quoting? Serbia posed no imminent threat to the US yet the interventions for Bosnia and Kosovo have been rightly seen as permittable. There is no binding/strict law that says the UN is the only actor capable of intervention, nor that self defense is the only reason for an intervention.
George W. may be a war criminal, but so is every other U.S. president since the U.S. assumed the role of world policeman from Britain and France after World War II. Being the world policeman puts the presidents in the position of needing to break the law, at least in order to carry out U.S. foreign policy. While the current Bush's administration has taken the law breaking to a whole new level, I don't believe for a second that all the adminstrations before him are squeaky clean either.
I think that this sort of analysis trivializes the whole concept of war crimes. If we say every leader is a war criminal (let's not forget Congress) then we're blurring the lines between people like Milosevic and the rest of the world's leadership. I don't think Bush is guilty of anything remotely similar to the genocide in Bosnia. I don't think he's guilty of anything remotely similar to Hitler's invasion of Poland (to start with). War criminals are those who order or carry out heinous actions out of the normal scope of wartime consideration. We should be careful about blurring the lines between the two lest we let crimes go by the wayside because 'everyone does it at some level.'
Wow, 64% of folks here think Bush is a war criminal ~ amazing how much the man is disliked in his own country.
I'm not going to vote in the poll. I think Bush is a criminal, but the criteria is bit nebulous when it comes to war criminals. There is enough wiggle room for Bush apologists to make a case for "no," and enough wiggle room for someone like me to say yes. I think the purpose of the thread was a BBS criminal act on gwayneco's part, but it ain't my show. I just post here. Bush is guilty of being the living embodiment of the Peter Principal. Keep D&D Civil.
I voted yes, because I believe he authorized the torture of suspected terrorists including U.S. citizens, or simply made a blanket statement such as "Do whatever you have to". In which case it is still his responsibility as Commander in Chief. Except for that, his response to Katrina, his disregard of the Goldwater-Nichols act, the reaming of Colin Powells cornhole leading up to the invasion, the failure to build support outside of the U.K. for the invasion, the failure to secure Iraq after Saddam lost power, the promotion of Rice after she lied (cutting her slack- she mispoke about a specific piece of evidence used for justification of the invasion, still unacceptable to me since there was no retraction) The complete failure of the propaganda war outside of the U.S., the dismantling of the safeguards of our civil liberties, his role in the spending spree of the gov. (lost his veto stamp?) Flawed drug plan, no child left behind, failure to capture Bin Laden, and well other than that he has been a fine president so far. Running around with a flag that says GWB=WAR CRIMINAL is pointless and counterproductive to the interests and security of this country unless the whole administration is thrown out of office, quickly, as a result. War Criminal is an inflammatory label, regardless of the truth. The leader of the US being (in this country) seen as a war criminal without his removal calls the integrity of the entire gov. into question. I'm saying, don't throw these words around lightly... prove this one or tone it down until you do. Good things have happened on his watch too and he deserves credit... you take the good with the bad to measure a president. GWB has faced serious challenges that I don't think he could have avoided and so I'd grant him that extra bit of slack. A good leader will not ignore, spin, or excuse mistakes but accept responsibility when necessary and learn from them. Gee, he has a tough job, Damn he sucks at it.
First, as a Christian I do not see any justification for a war for the benefit of the wealthy. Most wars finance the wealth of bankers. It is a travesty. I am not much for a 'just' war because so few are truly that. 9-11 was the false justification for the invasion. They are forever tied together. The Christian answer is that I will not judge someone, including a President guilty without a just trial and testimony. If Congress wasn't so corrupt I would like to see an investigation that determines if there was govt. complicity to allow 9-11, determine if it was a pretext for invasion and if the tactics of the occupation are criminal or ethical. With all the media spin it is very hard to get to the truth. The truth is what matters. As a Christian I abhor war atrocities and find little reason for Americans to die for oil and gas. Democracy is not the same as a Constitutional Republic and democracies are manipulations of political parties to serve the interest of the elites. So much for my opinion.
I don't have time to look it up at moment but I recall that according to the UN Charter military intervention without UN approval is only allowable under self-defense. With the Kosovo and Iraq final votes were never taken justifying or disallowing the intervention so they are UN legal limbo, although for Iraq the US did make a self-defense argument.
That has been the case but a more recent doctrine for humanitarian intervention has emerged and is seen as legitimate even outside the UN. There has been no hashing out what exactly that entails but it is a large grey area now on the issue. Hence self defense is no longer the only legitimate criteria for intervention.
Of course its a criteria, securing resource is a criteria too. The question of whether its legitimate is a different question and varies from case to case and who decides it is legitimate. The idea behind the UN was to determine when humanitarian interventions are legitimate. The UN charter doesn't allow individual countries on their own to decide on humanitarian intervention. That doesn't mean that countries won't justify invasions or wars on humanitarian basis. Syria justified invading Lebanon on humanitarian basis to bring an end to the Lebanese civil war. Heck Saddam justified invading Kuwait partly on removing the corrupt Kuwaiti Royal family. If you look hard enough you can find problems and oppressed people in any country. I will state in my own opinion the UN has really dropped the ball on a lot of these situations and continues to be a highly disfunctional organization. The strictest reading of the UN Charter would make the Balkans interventions illegal along with Iraq yet the only way to determine that is to have a Chapter 7 resolution stating it. Since none of that happened or even a vote these issues are in legal limbo from the UN standpoint.
We partially agree. We don't agree: Your comparison above is a poor one - nobody has advanced the idea that securing resources is a legitimate exception to the guidelines on intervention whereas intervention for humanitarian reasons has been. Nor is action limited to the UN - Annan himself admitted as much when discussing the intervention in Bosnia. The UN Charter doesn't allow for humanitarian intervention at all. That is a recent doctrine which is why it is such a grey area. Yes, you can find plenty of examples of interventions being justified for humanitarian reasons - but that is why claims of 'violating the charter' and 'violating international law' are so spurious. There IS a doctrine that allows for interventions outside the scope of the Charter. We agree: I agree the UN has dropped the ball as far as enumerating what does or does not qualify as a legitimate humanitarian intervention - that's part of my point to FB. The criteria is significantly grey at this point. For instance, neither the timing nor the scope of humanitarian concerns are set in stone (ie does it have to be an on-going genocide, or is genocide the only valid criteria - no.).
