Bush and Co. Warcrime Trial

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » 2006-07-04 07:11pm

Lets just suppose that Bush and co. has been dethroned and it is judgement day. Just how many counts can we get to stick to him and his pals so they can be punished for what they have done to the World with Iraq being the most visible example?

I know the White Phosphorus use in Fallujah, Haditha, Abu Graihb, and DU usage will be at the forefront. But what else is out there? Will we get a conviction or does Bush get away?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2006-07-04 08:14pm

Wrong forum off to Science we go, this is a Moral and ethical question rather than a political one.

*Edit right there, I will be keeping an eye on this and don't be suprised if it get's HoS'd on a moment's notice.

lance · Post by **lance** » 2006-07-04 08:53pm

I don't think DU usage is illiegal or immoral or anything. So that should be out.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2006-07-04 09:00pm

Human rights violations at both Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Violations of the Geneva Convention are considered war crimes, semantics about detainees not being POWs be damned.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-07-04 10:20pm

According to Hamdam v. Rumsfield, violations of the Geneva Convention are war crimes. So you can basically start with a grab-bag there.

munky99999 · Post by **munky99999** » 2006-07-04 11:33pm

Depeleted Uranium will definately 100% not be a crime. Basically every country with an airforce uses DU. As for the who war crimes deal. I think they can't be put on trial because of it not actually being a legitimate war. I'm sure you know what I mean.

Haditha: Forgive me, I'm really not sure what happened here. All i can remember are american soldiers dieing there. Not any sort of war crime worth sort of stuff.

White Phosphorus use in Fallujah: This I know about and as far as I know it's completely legal via the geneva documents.

Abu Graihb: certainly bad, but they court martialled all those reservist idiots.

Now I'm not a fan of GWB but charging him with war crimes for things like this can't really work out that well. To be honest.

Again with no declaration of war, i dont think they can be put on trial.

skotos · Post by **skotos** » 2006-07-04 11:46pm

SirNitram wrote:According to Hamdam v. Rumsfield, violations of the Geneva Convention are war crimes. So you can basically start with a grab-bag there.

Not quite true. It was Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion that identified violation of the Geneva Conventions as war crimes. This was not a majority opinion, Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined, with Justices Scalia, Thomas, Allito, and Stevens not joining.

Of course, violations of the Geneva Conventions may well be war crimes, but Hamdan v. Rumsfeld does not say so.

Omega-185 · Post by **Omega-185** » 2006-07-05 12:05am

munky99999 wrote:Haditha: Forgive me, I'm really not sure what happened here. All i can remember are american soldiers dieing there. Not any sort of war crime worth sort of stuff.

US marines went on a rampage and killed 18 (I think) civilians. A war crime if there ever was one.

White Phosphorus use in Fallujah: This I know about and as far as I know it's completely legal via the geneva documents.

No, it is banned by Geneva but the US didn't sign that part.

Abu Graihb: certainly bad, but they court martialled all those reservist idiots.

So you think that a few lowly NCOs tortured those prisoners with no directions from the upper echelons?

Now I'm not a fan of GWB but charging him with war crimes for things like this can't really work out that well. To be honest.

Are you serious? Iraq has been one major illegal clusterfuck after another.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-07-05 12:46am

skotos wrote:
SirNitram wrote:According to Hamdam v. Rumsfield, violations of the Geneva Convention are war crimes. So you can basically start with a grab-bag there.
Not quite true. It was Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion that identified violation of the Geneva Conventions as war crimes. This was not a majority opinion, Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined, with Justices Scalia, Thomas, Allito, and Stevens not joining.

Of course, violations of the Geneva Conventions may well be war crimes, but Hamdan v. Rumsfeld does not say so.

You know, you're right.

The Constitution says it is, because the Geneva Conventions are a signed treaty.

Elaro · Post by **Elaro** » 2006-07-05 12:38pm

In fact, we could think of the whole Iraq war being illegal, since the U.N. voted against military action. That would make the United States an outlaw nation.

And, for the judgment: life with hard labor, definitely.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-07-05 12:43pm

skotos wrote:
SirNitram wrote:According to Hamdam v. Rumsfield, violations of the Geneva Convention are war crimes. So you can basically start with a grab-bag there.
Not quite true. It was Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion that identified violation of the Geneva Conventions as war crimes. This was not a majority opinion, Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined, with Justices Scalia, Thomas, Allito, and Stevens not joining.

Of course, violations of the Geneva Conventions may well be war crimes, but Hamdan v. Rumsfeld does not say so.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld said that the Geneva Conventions, by virtue of being a signed US treaty, were part of US law. The constitution grants congress the power to sign treaties, which is why Bush and Co. want to push legislation through congress so that the shit at guantanimo bay can be continued. Congress can do this, as well, by the decision, because it's only because the accords are part of US law via being a signed treaty that this stuff's bad mojo legally.

munky99999 · Post by **munky99999** » 2006-07-05 01:22pm

Quote:
White Phosphorus use in Fallujah: This I know about and as far as I know it's completely legal via the geneva documents.

No, it is banned by Geneva but the US didn't sign that part.

as far as i know the usa signed it all. its just the weapon isnt direct outlawed by the chem weapons. as the chemical properties arent wat do the damage, its the fire.

So you think that a few lowly NCOs tortured those prisoners with no directions from the upper echelons?

well this was moreso a Bush thread, which im confident to say bush didnt order such atrocities. and rumsfeld seemed to know nothing about them.

as for NCOs I dont think their NCOs had any idea it was happening. staff sarge is the highest rank involved i believe.

Are you serious? Iraq has been one major illegal clusterfuck after another.

the difference i am seeing is that say hitler, he ordered the jews to be killed. Bush on the other hand isn't really ordering the atrocities to occur. I guess there would need to be more evidence to really actually bring him to trial.

munky99999 · Post by **munky99999** » 2006-07-05 01:26pm

In fact, we could think of the whole Iraq war being illegal, since the U.N. voted against military action. That would make the United States an outlaw nation.

And, for the judgment: life with hard labor, definitely.

I believe they were still able to go into a private war.

though i suppose Bush is a little hypocritical. they went to iraq because of degraded sarinbombs and then use borderline chemical weapons themselves.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-07-05 01:29pm

and with Haditha.. GW has nothing to do with that.. You would be saying we should have charged.. JFK/JOHNSON/NIXON should have been charged with war crimes for My Lia....

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-07-05 04:18pm

Bushites will get away. Absolutely impossible to convict persons THAT powerful. The only case they could be convicted would be a great revolution in America and a revolutionary trial is set in motion.

Other than that, no real institution, inside or outside the US cannot challenge the power of current administration and, what's more important, would utterly lose any case against this administration.

In a court, they would ALL get away.

Hell, some of the Nazis got away with their crimes, and how much worse they were! The Bushites would not be trialed and punished as severely, and their offense is much less than that of the Nazis.

Spetulhu · Post by **Spetulhu** » 2006-07-05 06:20pm

Omega-185 wrote:
munky99999 wrote:White Phosphorus use in Fallujah: This I know about and as far as I know it's completely legal via the geneva documents.
No, it is banned by Geneva but the US didn't sign that part.

Wasn't the excuse for this that WP burns stuff, but is perfectly legal as a way of lighting up the target? You can set a block on fire so your troops can see the target, but using the stuff just in order to burn the place and the defenders would be criminal. There's a convenient loophole right there.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-07-05 11:11pm

Hmmm, no option in the poll for 'goes free' or even an 'other'.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2006-07-06 07:05am

Wanderer wrote:I know the White Phosphorus use in Fallujah, Haditha, Abu Graihb, and DU usage will be at the forefront.

There is nothing there that would stand up in court.
W-P might be questioned as an incendiary weapon but IIRC that isn't its primary use so there are plenty of gray areas there.
You would only be able to prosecute for A-G if you had evidence that the Bush administration ordered atrocities or that the refused to stop them and punish the perpetrators.
IIRC there isn't a single rule against DU anywhere. There is loud screaching from greens, reds and pacifists but that hardly matters.

Your best bet might be the old Nüremberg charges of conspiring to start a war of aggression and even then your chances will be slim.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2006-07-06 07:13am

Stas Bush wrote:The only case they could be convicted would be a great revolution in America and a revolutionary trial is set in motion.

You can convict anyone of anything in a revolutionary court, thats the nice thing about them and the main reason you shouldn't expect justice from them.

Macross · Post by **Macross** » 2006-07-06 09:56am

CJvR wrote:
Stas Bush wrote:The only case they could be convicted would be a great revolution in America and a revolutionary trial is set in motion.
You can convict anyone of anything in a revolutionary court, thats the nice thing about them and the main reason you shouldn't expect justice from them.

True, and I cant help but draw parallels to the Saddam Hussein trial. Why hold his trial in Iraq, to be tried by the very people he is accused of victimizing? Hussein is an evil, ruthless dicatator who deserves to be tried and punished for his crimes, but why not turn him over to an International Criminal Tribunal, like what was done with Slobodan Milošević? I cant help but think that in an International Court of law, Hussein could have possibly won his case and that holding a trial in Iraq is the only way to guarantee a conviction.

This only bothers me because one of the reasons stated for going into Iraq was to "Spread Democracy, " one of the fundamental principles of democray the right to fair trial. Even Milošević, Ken Lay, and Nazi War Criminals all got fair trails. I find this whole situation to be hypocritical.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2006-07-06 12:57pm

Macross wrote:I cant help but think that in an International Court of law, Hussein could have possibly won his case...

As long as the trial was fair he would get convicted. The last thing the guilty wants is a fair trial. However an international court, hostile to the US, would give Saddam years of TV time to embarras his enemies and turn the procedings into a circus. Being a totalitarian tyrant do make it hard to shift blame onto someone else.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-07-06 01:02pm

munky99999 wrote:
as for NCOs I dont think their NCOs had any idea it was happening. staff sarge is the highest rank involved i believe.

Staff Sgt is an NCO.

munky99999 · Post by **munky99999** » 2006-07-06 02:38pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
munky99999 wrote: as for NCOs I dont think their NCOs had any idea it was happening. staff sarge is the highest rank involved i believe.
Staff Sgt is an NCO.

oh, i thought NCO started at gunnery sarge. Forgive me. In the canadian forces we only go up to sargeant and then next step is warrant officers. Which are the NCOs.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-07-06 02:40pm

munky99999 wrote: oh, i thought NCO started at gunnery sarge. Forgive me. In the canadian forces we only go up to sargeant and then next step is warrant officers. Which are the NCOs.

No in the CF NCOs start at Cpl and above.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-07-06 03:03pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
munky99999 wrote: oh, i thought NCO started at gunnery sarge. Forgive me. In the canadian forces we only go up to sargeant and then next step is warrant officers. Which are the NCOs.
No in the CF NCOs start at Cpl and above.

I think he's screwing up NCO and SNCO.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Bush and Co. Warcrime Trial

What should the Punishment be.

Bush and Co. Warcrime Trial

Re: Bush and Co. Warcrime Trial