Punishing war criminals

[Dominus Atheos]

I stumbled across a cartoon that I thought was funny and was going to post in into the political cartoon thread, but then I realized that the message was prime fodder for discussion. Here's the pic:



Many people on the site consider Bush a war criminal and have said they think he should be impeached, arrested, and tried by the International Criminal Court. But what about all the other people involved in the planning and execution of the Iraq war, or War on Terror? Even the generals and other military leaders fall under Command Responsibility. And what about the guards and staff at Guantanamo Bay? We executed most of the guards and staff at the Nazi's concentration camps. Obviously there has been no mass executions of women and children at Guantanamo Bay, but surely the tortures and other horrors demand some kind of punishment?

[Edi]

Bush, both of his administrations, the top echelons of Pentagon and the staff at Guantanamo would all qualify as war criminals if the Nürnberg yardstick was used as a measure.

Yes, it would be a very wide pool with lots of fish, some bigger than others, but obviously the biggest responsibility would be at the White House and the Rumsfeld Department of Defense, followed by the Pentagon.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, 70 years hard labour the lot of them!!!

[Jade Falcon]

We executed most of the guards and staff at the Nazi's concentration camps.

It might surprise you how many were never even brought up on charges.

I purchased the documentary, "Auschwits, The Nazis and the Final Solution" and have watched all of it, and it mentions that over the years of the Auschitz camp complex operation there were approximately 8000 SS worked there from the Commandant to the lowliest SS clerk, and of all that about 7000 were never even prosecuted. Granted, that is just one camp.

[Dominus Atheos]

Bush, both of his administrations, the top echelons of Pentagon and the staff at Guantanamo would all qualify as war criminals if the Nürnberg yardstick was used as a measure.

As I'm sure you're well aware, the Allies prosecuted the leaders of every nation that fought on the side of the germans. So every leader of every original member of the "coalition of the willing" should be tried for crimes against the peace, and they all bear at least some of the responsibility for the 1,000,000 dead civilians as a result of the war.

[Block]

Bush, both of his administrations, the top echelons of Pentagon and the staff at Guantanamo would all qualify as war criminals if the Nürnberg yardstick was used as a measure.

Yes, it would be a very wide pool with lots of fish, some bigger than others, but obviously the biggest responsibility would be at the White House and the Rumsfeld Department of Defense, followed by the Pentagon.

You're going to have to explain that. I'm not fond of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or any of them, but they didn't institute a policy of systematic anhilliation of an entire people. Nor are US troops acting in a particularly uncivilized manner, yes there's been some problems, but point out a single conflict where there aren't cases of that happening, and where the administration in charge was punished for it.

[Block]

Bush, both of his administrations, the top echelons of Pentagon and the staff at Guantanamo would all qualify as war criminals if the Nürnberg yardstick was used as a measure.

As I'm sure you're well aware, the Allies prosecuted the leaders of every nation that fought on the side of the germans. So every leader of every original member of the "coalition of the willing" should be tried for crimes against the peace, and they all bear at least some of the responsibility for the 1,000,000 dead civilians as a result of the war.

And of the dead civilians, how many are the Coalition forces responsible for? Can you really hold the leaders of those countries LEGALLY responsible for the ethnic cleansing that the forces within the country inflicted upon eachother? Especially when US and British forces did their best to stop it?

[Gandalf]

You're going to have to explain that. I'm not fond of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or any of them, but they didn't institute a policy of systematic anhilliation of an entire people.

Those at Nuremberg were each up on one or more of the following charges:

• Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace

• Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace

• War crimes

• Crimes against humanity

Note the first two. That's where you'd be able to nail the Bush junta.

[Gandalf]

Oops, sorry I buggered up the code.

[Darth Wong]

You're going to have to explain that. I'm not fond of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or any of them, but they didn't institute a policy of systematic anhilliation of an entire people.

You feel that anything less than "systematic annihilation of an entire people" should not be regarded as a war crime?

[Coyote]

I think he's talking about the initial accusations of "genocide against Iraqis/Arabs" when Bush launched the war in 2003.

[Big Orange]

How could we seriously prosecute a good chunk of the current US Government and Military (with dozens or hundreds of executions included) without sparking something bordering on civil war?

[Coyote]

How could we seriously prosecute a good chunk of the current US Government and Military (with dozens or hundreds of executions included) without sparking something bordering on civil war?

At the risk of sounding melodramatic, it may come to that. But let's face it, when are war criminals ever brought up on charges? When are sentences against them actually carried out? It's when the country sponsoring the war criminals is defeated, and the war criminals forcibly brought to trial, that's when.

Which usually means an outside government or coalition of governments does it, or possibly when there's an internal conflict in which the heads of state are deposed and brought before an internal tribunal.

At best, what other countries can do with regards to Bush & crew are to issue warrants in their countries so that if Bush (or his cronies) ever decides to go outside the USA he can be apprehended, tried, and etc.

[Big Phil]

The Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes trials aren't exactly a good benchmark for how to prosecute war criminals. At the time that the "war criminals" committed many of their crimes, many of those "crimes" weren't "crimes." In other words, until Germany and Japan were defeated and the leaders prosecuted, it was not illegal or criminal to start a war of aggression. Those charges were invented during the war by the Allies to punish Germany and Japan.

The entire concept of war crimes is pretty questionable in any case. Bush and company could just as easily be tried for civil and criminal offenses within the United States (treason, for example) without introducing questions of sovereignty and discrediting the World Court by allowing one or more countries to ignore it. They won't be, of course, but they won't be tried for war crimes in absentia either.

[Elfdart]

How could we seriously prosecute a good chunk of the current US Government and Military (with dozens or hundreds of executions included) without sparking something bordering on civil war?

Easy, start issuing warrants and arresting them. These people are sniveling cowards, so they will almost immediately (a) try to flee the country (like O.J. Simpson, (b) start ratting on one another (like gangsters) or (c) feign mental illness (like Pinochet).

Vincent Bugliosi makes a very good case for simply charging them with murder in local courts like any other criminals. He's the prosecutor who convicted Charles Manson and his "family", so he'd be ideal for prosecuting another group of sadists and serial killers.

[Big Phil]

At best, what other countries can do with regards to Bush & crew are to issue warrants in their countries so that if Bush (or his cronies) ever decides to go outside the USA he can be apprehended, tried, and etc.

I'm not even sure where to start in stating my horror at this idea. Do you really want to live in a world where countries are regularly charging other heads of state with crimes (crimes not committed in the charging country, mind you)? Heads of state being charged, and perhaps arrested, can lead to wars. I'm less worried about that happening, and more worried about seeing well connected Dutchmen, Americans, or Russians having their foreign business competitors charged with crimes, such that the competitors can no longer effectively do business in another nation.

If Iraq wants to charge shrub with crimes in Iraq, then go for it. However, the concept of France, Germany, or Italy charging him with crimes committed in Iraq is simply asinine.

[Elfdart]

The entire concept of war crimes is pretty questionable in any case. Bush and company could just as easily be tried for civil and criminal offenses within the United States (treason, for example) without introducing questions of sovereignty and discrediting the World Court by allowing one or more countries to ignore it. They won't be, of course, but they won't be tried for war crimes in absentia either.

Trying them in absentia is actually a good idea. If it was good enough for Ira Einhorn...

[Big Phil]

The entire concept of war crimes is pretty questionable in any case. Bush and company could just as easily be tried for civil and criminal offenses within the United States (treason, for example) without introducing questions of sovereignty and discrediting the World Court by allowing one or more countries to ignore it. They won't be, of course, but they won't be tried for war crimes in absentia either.

Trying them in absentia is actually a good idea. If it was good enough for Ira Einhorn...

Of course it's a good idea, but it won't happen. I don't think any politician wants to be held accountable for the decisions they made and the results of those decisions.

[Elfdart]

At best, what other countries can do with regards to Bush & crew are to issue warrants in their countries so that if Bush (or his cronies) ever decides to go outside the USA he can be apprehended, tried, and etc.

I'm not even sure where to start in stating my horror at this idea. Do you really want to live in a world where countries are regularly charging other heads of state with crimes (crimes not committed in the charging country, mind you)? Heads of state being charged, and perhaps arrested, can lead to wars. I'm less worried about that happening, and more worried about seeing well connected Dutchmen, Americans, or Russians having their foreign business competitors charged with crimes, such that the competitors can no longer effectively do business in another nation.

If Iraq wants to charge shrub with crimes in Iraq, then go for it. However, the concept of France, Germany, or Italy charging him with crimes committed in Iraq is simply asinine.

By that logic, Israel had no right to try Adolf Eichmann.

Certain crimes are international and have universal jurisdiction: slave trading, piracy (air or sea), genocide, torture, and other war crimes and crimes against humanity. This means ANY government can try any case whether the victims or perpetrators are citizens or not, and whether the crime took place in that country's borders or not.

Besides, the Cheney-Bush Junta HAS in fact abducted and tortured citizens of Germany, Italy and Canada. So those countries would be justified in prosecuting anyway.

[Elfdart]

Of course it's a good idea, but it won't happen. I don't think any politician wants to be held accountable for the decisions they made and the results of those decisions.

I'm sure they don't. But then, I'm also sure John Wayne Gacy didn't want to be held accountable by the law, either.

[Coyote]

At best, what other countries can do with regards to Bush & crew are to issue warrants in their countries so that if Bush (or his cronies) ever decides to go outside the USA he can be apprehended, tried, and etc.

I'm not even sure where to start in stating my horror at this idea. Do you really want to live in a world where countries are regularly charging other heads of state with crimes (crimes not committed in the charging country, mind you)? Heads of state being charged, and perhaps arrested, can lead to wars. I'm less worried about that happening, and more worried about seeing well connected Dutchmen, Americans, or Russians having their foreign business competitors charged with crimes, such that the competitors can no longer effectively do business in another nation.

If Iraq wants to charge shrub with crimes in Iraq, then go for it. However, the concept of France, Germany, or Italy charging him with crimes committed in Iraq is simply asinine.

I'm saying that some of the peole howling in this thread for Bush's head on a platter at the World Court have little real recourse to anything BUT that. And the only reason I point that out is because of precedents. I believe there is a subculture of various former State actors who can never visit certain countries because there are arrest warrants for them-- isn't Henry Kissinger one of these guys who can never go to some places in Europe or something for fear of extradition?

My point was, if Bush is a "war criminal" (and bear in mind I'm not contesting that, I think he has unquestionably broken the law, violated the Constitution and done other nasty things) there is little serious action that can be taken.

By the book, other countries would be able to send in teams to round him up and get him-- we tried doing that with Ratko Mladic, in Serbia, even though we never did find him-- we set that precedent ourselves. But realistically, the tiny handful of countries that are strong enough to try wouldn't risk the repercussions of war it would ignite. So it's unrealisitc any outside actors could come to America to charge him.

That leaves internal action by the American people, or by outside arrest warrants in the hope Bush ever wanders into their yard.

[Big Phil]

At best, what other countries can do with regards to Bush & crew are to issue warrants in their countries so that if Bush (or his cronies) ever decides to go outside the USA he can be apprehended, tried, and etc.

I'm not even sure where to start in stating my horror at this idea. Do you really want to live in a world where countries are regularly charging other heads of state with crimes (crimes not committed in the charging country, mind you)? Heads of state being charged, and perhaps arrested, can lead to wars. I'm less worried about that happening, and more worried about seeing well connected Dutchmen, Americans, or Russians having their foreign business competitors charged with crimes, such that the competitors can no longer effectively do business in another nation.

If Iraq wants to charge shrub with crimes in Iraq, then go for it. However, the concept of France, Germany, or Italy charging him with crimes committed in Iraq is simply asinine.

By that logic, Israel had no right to try Adolf Eichmann.

I'm not sure they did have the right to try him, not that it mattered to anyone. After all, who's going to defend a Nazi?

Certain crimes are international and have universal jurisdiction: slave trading, piracy (air or sea), genocide, torture, and other war crimes and crimes against humanity. This means ANY government can try any case whether the victims or perpetrators are citizens or not, and whether the crime took place in that country's borders or not.

Why?

Besides, the Cheney-Bush Junta HAS in fact abducted and tortured citizens of Germany, Italy and Canada. So those countries would be justified in prosecuting anyway.

Fine by me - Germany, Italy, and Canada are welcome to prosecute Shrub and Co.

[Darth Wong]

It's a well-known fact that the very wealthy and powerful can essentially thumb their noses at the law, because none would dare take the necessary actions to bring them to justice. What mystifies me is the fact that some people seem to think this is a perfectly fine situation, and at times even seem to be cheerleaders for it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Bush, both of his administrations, the top echelons of Pentagon and the staff at Guantanamo would all qualify as war criminals if the Nürnberg yardstick was used as a measure.

Yes, it would be a very wide pool with lots of fish, some bigger than others, but obviously the biggest responsibility would be at the White House and the Rumsfeld Department of Defense, followed by the Pentagon.

What is the precise difference between the Pentagon and the Department of Defense? Do you mean the Armed Forces?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Bush, both of his administrations, the top echelons of Pentagon and the staff at Guantanamo would all qualify as war criminals if the Nürnberg yardstick was used as a measure.

As I'm sure you're well aware, the Allies prosecuted the leaders of every nation that fought on the side of the germans. So every leader of every original member of the "coalition of the willing" should be tried for crimes against the peace, and they all bear at least some of the responsibility for the 1,000,000 dead civilians as a result of the war.

U.S. was no party to those negotiations and never declared war against Finland, so to hold the Soviet kangaroo court against us as hypocrisy is misleading. In general though, the Nurnberg precedent clearly condemns Bush and his advisers and subordinates, and probably the Government of PM Blair as well.