Is George Bush a War Criminal?

[tenni]

This is from today's National Post and reprinted from the Ottawa Citizen. The National Post is a rather conservative newspaper.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/09/debate-george-w-bush-ordered-torture-hes-a-war-criminal/

Do laws apply to the United States and its president as they do to other nations and men? On the weekend, Swiss officials were very nearly forced to answer that explosive question....Knowing that George W. Bush was scheduled to speak in Geneva on Saturday, a coalition of human rights groups reminded Swiss officials of their legal obligations. Bush cancelled his speech. The Swiss surely heaved a deep sigh of relief.

The American government will not permit American officials at any level to be prosecuted by foreign governments and it’s quite prepared to play the ugly American to stop that from happening....Germany has refused to seek the extradition of those responsible. And thanks to WikiLeaks, we know why: The American government privately warned German officials that any attempt to prosecute would damage “our bilateral relationship.” Translated from the polite language of diplomacy, that means: Do it and you’ll suffer.

In his memoirs, published late last year, and in subsequent interviews, Bush explicitly said he ordered officials to subject terrorism suspects to waterboarding and other torture techniques. The fact that he had done so wasn’t much of a surprise. There was already heaps of evidence implicating the Bush administration, up to and including the president. What was shocking was that Bush admitted it. He even seemed to boast about it. “Damn right,” he said when Matt Lauer asked whether he had ordered waterboarding.

The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) has been signed by almost every nation on Earth. Canada is a signatory. So is the United States, thanks to Ronald Reagan.

The UNCAT requires states to make torture a crime under domestic legislation. It also requires states to conduct “a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed.”

So there two conditions to trigger an obligation to investigate: There have to be reasonable grounds and the suspected acts must constitute torture.
On reasonable grounds, there is no doubt.....but was it torture? Bush and company deny it, but legal scholars scoff. Domestic American courts have convicted defendants for the very acts they authorized. So have American military tribunals. And international tribunals. The American government’s own statements on human rights routinely describe waterboarding and the other techniques as “torture” when they are committed by foreign governments.

It’s torture. Case closed.

The conclusion is obvious: The Obama administration is obliged by the UNCAT to investigate Bush and his officials. It won’t. So the administration is in violation of the law. And that puts other governments in a very awkward spot. Not only does the UNCAT require states to investigate and prosecute their own citizens suspected of committing torture. It obliges all signatory states to act against anyone who may have committed torture anywhere. “Take him into custody,” the CAT directs, but “only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.” If the suspect’s government will not seek his extradition for prosecution, the detaining government is required to investigate, prosecute and punish.

No exceptions. It’s the law.

[Annika L]

I think this is one more area where the Democrats (including the president I voted for) are showing a bizarrely small amount of spine, both nationally and internationally. (The Republicans show no more spine here, by the way...and invent even more crazy rationalizations for staying in denial.) We know there were issues with Bush, the current president knows there were issues with Bush. Personally, I think we would be showing our strength as a nation if we did follow our laws and international laws, and pursued a rat when we smelled one. But too many Americans (in my opinion) believe that to even investigate Mr. Bush's actions would show weakness to the world...a disunity of sorts. I don't buy it one bit...what we're showing is disunity with our values and laws.

The US also has a history (since the 1970's anyway) of a new president basically exonerating former presidents for possible wrong-doing. Ford did this explicitly for Nixon. To me, it's a bit like saying, "hey, being president of the US is hard...anyone is liable to slip up; let's give the guy a break." Nowadays it seems worse: a new president doesn't even have to say it out loud...it's just implicitly true: "yeah, maybe Bush broke the law, but we perceived ourselves nationally to be under attack...any president would have been hard-pressed to not break the law; let's give the guy a break."

When I was growing up, I heard stories about how Hitler rose to power and began to pursue his Nazi agenda, and I said "that's nuts...how could the Germans be so inept as to let this guy rise to power??" I was 10-12 then...now I'm 44, and seeing how my country is behaving, I completely understand how that happened. We're not quite at that level of malfeasance (i.e., I am NOT equating Bush with Hitler), but we are dangerously close. It makes me sad for my country; it makes me ashamed of my country; and frankly it makes me nervous continuing to live here...that situation is currently under review.

[azirish]

Politicians are politicians as Obama is no different from Bush, who was no different from Clinton. Obama has done nothing different from Bush. Please wake up. There is no difference in "democrats" and "republicans" one simply has better advertising.


I think this is one more area where the Democrats (including the president I voted for) are showing a bizarrely small amount of spine, both nationally and internationally. (The Republicans show no more spine here, by the way...and invent even more crazy rationalizations for staying in denial.) We know there were issues with Bush, the current president knows there were issues with Bush. Personally, I think we would be showing our strength as a nation if we did follow our laws and international laws, and pursued a rat when we smelled one. But too many Americans (in my opinion) believe that to even investigate Mr. Bush's actions would show weakness to the world...a disunity of sorts. I don't buy it one bit...what we're showing is disunity with our values and laws.

The US also has a history (since the 1970's anyway) of a new president basically exonerating former presidents for possible wrong-doing. Ford did this explicitly for Nixon. To me, it's a bit like saying, "hey, being president of the US is hard...anyone is liable to slip up; let's give the guy a break." Nowadays it seems worse: a new president doesn't even have to say it out loud...it's just implicitly true: "yeah, maybe Bush broke the law, but we perceived ourselves nationally to be under attack...any president would have been hard-pressed to not break the law; let's give the guy a break."

When I was growing up, I heard stories about how Hitler rose to power and began to pursue his Nazi agenda, and I said "that's nuts...how could the Germans be so inept as to let this guy rise to power??" I was 10-12 then...now I'm 44, and seeing how my country is behaving, I completely understand how that happened. We're not quite at that level of malfeasance (i.e., I am NOT equating Bush with Hitler), but we are dangerously close. It makes me sad for my country; it makes me ashamed of my country; and frankly it makes me nervous continuing to live here...that situation is currently under review.

[DuckiesDarling]

Treaty vs Law, learn the difference.:2cents:

[tenni]

Treaty vs Law, learn the difference.:2cents:

The UNCAT requires states to make torture a crime under domestic legislation. It also requires states to conduct “a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed.”

[DuckiesDarling]

The UNCAT is a treaty, by International Law.. yeah LAW, a soverign state like the US can break any TREATY.

You won't find many Americans that like Bush so you are really barking up the wrong tree.

[Doggie_Wood]

IMHO - To answer the title question

in one word

HELL NO!!


Sorry, that was two words :bigrin:

Doggie :doggie:

[Annika L]

The UNCAT is a treaty, by International Law.. yeah LAW, a soverign state like the US can break any TREATY.

You won't find many Americans that like Bush so you are really barking up the wrong tree.

Just trying to understand this. Is there something important I'm missing?


Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.

Yes, of course, the US can break any treaty. They can also break any law, just like you or I can. But in either case, they (or we) can be held accountable, no?

[DuckiesDarling]

Quite simply, Annika, Tenni has posted that it was law, it was not law. It was a treaty.

Do I like Bush no, but he is not a war criminal. And no pardons would need to be handed by Obama to Bush for a crime he didn't commit.

[Hephaestion]

A treaty is a formal agreement between parties where "formal" is stipulated to mean "explicit binding" rules; as good as a Law any day.

Bush and Blair are both war criminals if only by comparison of those that have been classified as such before them i.e. precedent.

Should either be pardoned? No. What good would it do anyway? History has already recorded and calssified their actions. A pardon would merely reinforce the sense of hypochrisy that the rest of the world feels about the USA and its poodles.

Woof, woof, tickle our tums.

[darkeyes]

In the tehnical and legal sense that he has never been tried and convicted of war crimes, no he is not.. neither is Blair.. is there sufficient evidence for both to be put on trial for war crimes? Of that I have no doubt whatsoever..

[void()]

In my view Bush broke the Geneva Conventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions), which are the standards for international law regarding warfare. He and now the current POTUS are in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml) and as a member nation and sovereign of the United Nations, this acts as law regarding our behavior. So, in my view then, the reply is a resounding yes they are war criminals.

This is why it bothered me hearing a young Marine returning from Iraq. He pronounced loudly, "I killed thirteen of them towel heads, they sent me home. I got a new $50,000 truck, new job doing next to nothing and earning over $100,000 annually. And a new $200,000 home!" Lots of Americans share that ignorance and arrogance. We should wake up and realize why 'they' would loathe us.

I still am unconvinced that Al-Qaeda had anything to do with Sept. 11 2001. POTUS Bush vowed there would be solid empirical evidence that they did, as of yet none has came forward. If you had proof, wouldn't you want the whole world to know? Wouldn't you seek justice via International Courts? And yet we've nothing as proof so far. And to me it is a simple if then else statement. If there is proof, then display it, else no proof exists. Don't know how much more articulate and clear that needs to be.

As for Afghanistan why are our soldiers putting farmers back to growing poppies used to produce heroin, when the government of the farmers is teaching them to farm say corn? I believe it is because heroin creates a way to make money via continuing a war on drugs, as well as just selling it for itself. There's a reason it is called the other 'black gold'. The other black gold is oil. Guess my view is summed by 'follow the money'. If that is too bleak or offensive, I'm not sorry. I've found following the money often proves out. Money translates into power. Funny how it and God are both ideas that have no real meaning, yet seemingly have conquered the world.

N.B.

I do apologize for the last sentence of the last paragraph. It is my opinion as humble as it is. I am obviously an atheist. I do have Christian friends. Normally, I do not make such statements. But all is fair regarding love and war. Can we just quit war all together and never revisit it? It's another idea that has no meaning but conquers the world. And look at the price of it.

[darkeyes]

Can we just quit war all together and never revisit it? It's another idea that has no meaning but conquers the world. And look at the price of it.

*Throws arms round Voidie's neck an gives huge huggle n kissie*:)

[tenni]

"Money translates into power."
Power in itself is being shown for striping bare western nations with the people like Blair and Bush and their administrations. Long, long before Abu Grav(sp) images showed US soldiers torturing captives, a British documentary exposed that Rumsfeld had written in his own handwriting comments about extending the length of time that a prisoner should be forced to kneel in a position that fell under "torture" accusation.

With the Bush memoirs and his repeated admitting that he authorized water torture, this has left countries exposed to hypocrisy as in the Swiss situation. The fact that there was protest about Bush speaking in Switzerland and he withdrew leads one to suspect that if he had entered Switzerland that the Swiss would have charged him. The wikileaks document exposing that the US has threatened Germany if they arrested Bush is yet more evidence indicating that the West is exposed now. The power of the US regime is permitting it to hide its guilt. I suspect that Canada will eventually be exposed and the PM Harper and his regime will be found to have also authorized torture. It is presently still being hidden and the committee that was to release information has fallen silent.

"Domestic American courts have convicted defendants for the very acts they authorized. So have American military tribunals. And international tribunals."
It is difficult to understand those that argue that there is no law in the US that Bush may be charged under when the UN treaty specifically states that the US is required to create such a law. The above statement in the article states that there are US laws to charge Bush under and other US people have been charged. It seems far too convenient a sham to argue otherwise. Those that wish to argue that Bush is not to be charged are playing a blind man's game of denial imo. Justice is being denied by many western countries under pressure from the US Obama regime.

[darkeyes]

"Money translates into power."
Power in itself is being shown for striping bare western nations with the people like Blair and Bush and their administrations. Long, long before Abu Grav(sp) images showed US soldiers torturing captives, a British documentary exposed that Rumsfeld had written in his own handwriting comments about extending the length of time that a prisoner should be forced to kneel in a position that fell under "torture" accusation.

With the Bush memoirs and his repeated admitting that he authorized water torture, this has left countries exposed to hypocrisy as in the Swiss situation. The fact that there was protest about Bush speaking in Switzerland and he withdrew leads one to suspect that if he had entered Switzerland that the Swiss would have charged him. The wikileaks document exposing that the US has threatened Germany if they arrested Bush is yet more evidence indicating that the West is exposed now. The power of the US regime is permitting it to hide its guilt. I suspect that Canada will eventually be exposed and the PM Harper and his regime will be found to have also authorized torture. It is presently still being hidden and the committee that was to release information has fallen silent.

"Domestic American courts have convicted defendants for the very acts they authorized. So have American military tribunals. And international tribunals."
It is difficult to understand those that argue that there is no law in the US that Bush may be charged under when the UN treaty specifically states that the US is required to create such a law. The above statement in the article states that there are US laws to charge Bush under and other US people have been charged. It seems far too convenient a sham to argue otherwise. Those that wish to argue that Bush is not to be charged are playing a blind man's game of denial imo. Justice is being denied by many western countries under pressure from the US Obama regime.

I don't demur from anything you say here Tenni.. but think on this.. it isnt only the Obama regime, and it is not only the US who are uncomfortable with their leaders and former leaders being indicted tried and covicted for war crimes.. I doubt if any once in power would be too happy about any of their predecessors being so prosecuted and conviccted.. after all.. very dangerous is it not for them?

It is a gross hypocrisy I agree that Europe and the US expect leaders who are allegedly war criminals to be tried, yet excuse themselves from the firing line.. they throw in a few carrots as salves by prosecuting a few who carried out orders or who may have done things off their own bat.. but themselves and their ministers? No chance.. the US is the worst and most blatant offender, but by no means the only serious and almost equally blatant offender.. being so called civilised free liberal democracies does not exonerate our leaders from crimes commited by their orders in our name, or for failing to control properly in war those who act criminally outside of those orders.. sadly war is not a civilised affair.. it is a disease of the primitive and "civilised" world alike.. as long as we keep our leaders free of facing up to the consequences of their decisions and actions and the actions of those who act in their and our name, war will continue to be a fact of life and the ruination of millions of human lifes. Holding leaders properly and effectively to account will not in itself end war.. but it may make political leaders a little more hesitant in marching to war as they did in the last gulf war and in Afghanistan and many other crazy and stupid conflicts of the past.

[tenni]

darkeyes
I have frequently questioned myself on how I personally distinguish a difference between Blair and Bush. Blair denies that it was wrong to invade Iraq still. My memory may serve me poorly but didn't Blair write a book as well as Bush? I recall Blair getting a rough treatment when he went to do book signings in Britain to the point that he had to cancel some. I did not hear a lot of accusations that Blair had authorized torture. Perhaps you may enlighten me otherwise.

The audacity of Bush to write a book admitting that he authorized torture seems to be a significant difference as to how they have handled accusations of war crimes. Blair has been able to move into other international roles to some extent as a do gooder but not all sides have trusted him in his mid east attempts. I'm not sure if it is his polite manners that makes me look differently or less harsh than I am able to look at the Bush administration. I do agree that how the West is treating this war crime accusations is telling and more than likely increasing world problems than solving them.

[darkeyes]

darkeyes
I have frequently questioned myself on how I personally distinguish a difference between Blair and Bush. Blair denies that it was wrong to invade Iraq still. My memory may serve me poorly but didn't Blair write a book as well as Bush? I recall Blair getting a rough treatment when he went to do book signings in Britain to the point that he had to cancel some. I did not hear a lot of accusations that Blair had authorized torture. Perhaps you may enlighten me otherwise.

The audacity of Bush to write a book admitting that he authorized torture seems to be a significant difference as to how they have handled accusations of war crimes. Blair has been able to move into other international roles to some extent as a do gooder but not all sides have trusted him in his mid east attempts. I'm not sure if it is his polite manners that makes me look differently or less harsh than I am able to look at the Bush administration. I do agree that how the West is treating this war crime accusations is telling and more than likely increasing world problems than solving them.

I dont distinguish between the two except to say that Blair is a smoother, brighter and more polished performer than Bush.. the fact that he is the more intelligent in some ways condemns him the more in my eyes.. he did get rough treatment at book signings, and in my view quite rightly so.. he has also had and is getting rough treatment at the hands of the media and in many quarters of his own party..again quite rightly and justifiably so.. there have been no statements that he or any of his ministers authorised torture.. what they have said is that the only interrogation they ever approved was in accord with the law.. that there have instances of torture and brutality however by British soldiers has been well documented.. as to how far ministers and Blair approved these are is yet unkown.. but suspicions remain..

Blair's move into the mid eastern diplomatic peace making side of things has not been and can never be a success.. repeated statements by him show where his loyalties lie and show him not to be one who will show or has shown even handedness.... so I dont blame the arab side from not trusting him on that alone, far less his activities as a Bush "poodle" and war Prime Minister.. when it comes down to it, Blair genuinely I think believes going to war was the right thing to do in both Afghanistan and Iraq.. I have no doubt Bush does, but that does not excuse either man from his responsibility for the conduct of those wars and any illegal action and brutality, known or otherwise which occured and was carried out by their troops. The legality of the war is certainly very questionable.. and if you or I or anyone else here broke the law of our state would we not be rendered responisible and criminal? If it is proven that those wars were illegal in a court of law then should not those responsible for taking their countries to war be prosecuted in a criminal trial?

A fascinating development is the way Blair has taken the fight to the Hutton Inquiry on the Iraq war.. I'm not so sure he would be so defiant and smug if Hutton could get access to the documents he has been refused.. very important and pertinent documents which may well prove or disprove his case.. both his successors governments have refused to allow this and we must question the reasons for this.. again I suspect it has more to do with future Prime Ministerial culpability than past.. Hutton the Chair of the Inquiry did his nut when told he could not gain access to these documents .. therefore whatever comes out of his inquiry is not going to be the whole story.. how can it be when hundreds and thousands of documents are suppressed for one reason or other...

There are those who say the wars of both Afghanistan and Iran were and are justifiable. Blair does and so does George Bush. They have made many statements before during and after the war to continue with their claims that war was the right thing to do.. yet they deceived the peoples of our countries quite shockingly, and told (and still tell often different) untruths and steam rollered over all opposition to get their way.. regime change.. thats what it was all about.. although George bush has at least the argument, spurious as it is that Al qaeda was masterminded and active in Iraq (a total fabrication in this case) and more importantly, Afghanistan, that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 (never proven as has always been said elsewhere in the thread, and remarkably short of evidence that they were responsible) and that he had to act in some way to prevent a repeat of 9/11 in defence of his country and the American people.. yet vengeance is always a dirty thing and leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.. yet if vengeance is to be taken, then surely it should be taken against the proven perpetrators, irrespective of how nasty the regimes of both Iraq and Afghanistan were? Hitting out against the wrong people however bad they are and using them as scapegoats is never a good thing.. who knows when it will be our turn to be the kicking boy however innocent we may be??

History will some day get to the bottom of it all.. whether the reputations of Blair and Bush will ever recover is very debatable.. evidence such as it is against both is strong, even although much is circumstantial, but not all.. how we view both men today depends on a number of things..for instance as a few examples, our patriotism, or lack of it, our belief that the wars (or any war) were justified or not, whether we accept the wrong doings of our military personnel and our political leaders as acceptable, whether we believe them, and what we believe to be the truth of the matter.. and whether we should allow our political masters to take our countries to war against the express wishes of the huge majority of the population(as in the case of the UK).

In my view both men are war criminals.. so far it just hasnt been proven legally yet.. they are not alone in their governments, there are others.. just as there are more war criminals among our military and even probably our civil servants and many private contractors involved in the conflicts. The fact that the other side were also war criminals in brutal tyrannies is irrelevant. Our political leaders do things in our name, ostensibly in our defence (an argument I have never accepted for reasons I have often outlined), and by letting them away with without question and without holding them legally to account, it can be argued, makes us war criminals ourselves..

[Annika L]

A treaty is a formal agreement between parties where "formal" is stipulated to mean "explicit binding" rules; as good as a Law any day.


Thank you for clarifying that, Heph...that's what I thought. I stand by my original statement, and will not niggle over semantics.

[TaylorMade]

Quite simply, Annika, Tenni has posted that it was law, it was not law. It was a treaty.

Do I like Bush no, but he is not a war criminal. And no pardons would need to be handed by Obama to Bush for a crime he didn't commit.

I'll throw myself behind this one.. and Obama is continuing this war so... if we arrested Bush, we'd have to do the same to Obama, and I'm betting fewer would be willing to do that to him.

*Taylor*

[void()]

"Power in itself is being shown for striping bare western nations with the people like Blair and Bush and their administrations. Long, long before Abu Grav(sp) images showed US soldiers torturing captives, a British documentary exposed that Rumsfeld had written in his own handwriting comments about extending the length of time that a prisoner should be forced to kneel in a position that fell under "torture" accusation. "

Yes and soldiers whom had served longer, having more experience and honors agreed torture did not work effectively. Sadly, this fell to deaf ears. It appears we've replaced justice with vengeance. Even Timothy McVeigh's trail and execution seemed a matter of vengeance, than justice. From there onward we've spiraled.

"Blair is a smoother, brighter and more polished performer than Bush .."

I am hearing electric light orchestra now, oddly. Thank you sister Fran for the next six weeks of nightmares. Love ya for it, really do. :) Seriously, you're correct in Blair being more polished. I hear cross examination by MI6 does wonders to polish folks off. Bother, one of those bits I'm not to know slipped out again. Some day I'll figure out these false memory implants. Until then Pat Sajack as a politician? You keep 'im 'r there, sure some Geordie can roll his arse out the boot of a unestablished pub. Pardon my Turkish.

"Blair genuinely I think believes going to war was the right thing to do in both Afghanistan and Iraq.."

Yes, I think he got snowed like many. Doubt the Iron Lady would have been as accepting, more the pity she's no longer about.

"It is difficult to understand those that argue that there is no law in the US that Bush may be charged under"

Actually tenni, Bush could be tried for treason. I know the war/s did not cause all of our financial problems. Yet, they clearly did not help matters any. If as any good leader should, Bush knew of impending economic demise, yet trotted on to war that costs billions ... I'd suggest that as treasonous. Without adequate funds America sits ripe for the pickings, more so with her standing military scattered the world over. Not to imply anything but there are a few obvious suggestions becoming large white elephants in the room.

Trouble being a combination of ignorance, arrogance, apathy on the part of Americans.

Let me pause a moment here to explain something which bears out. Many would argue that since I do not vote, I ought not voice an opinion. I do not vote because of upbringing in military type cast families. Soldiers just do, they don't question or have say. That and I consider withholding my vote as a matter of showing no confidence in our system. It is broken, maybe beyond repair. I see some effort toward repair. It may be too little too late. That aside, I am still free to voice an opinion as I did serve the country and am a citizen of it. My grandfather, uncle, father all served as well. I'm sure the dues are paid.

Again, I see it going back to a simple pyramid.
<pre>
People
Money Control Power
</pre>

This is the way firemen diagram fire, too.

<pre>
Air
Fuel Fire Heat
</pre>

Remove one of three elements you put out fire, or lose control. It seems obvious enough but is lost to hordes of folks. A shame I'm no better educated. I've learned though, you need to apply it or lose it.

Void sits lost in thought and weighing much and nothing.

<snark> Void swats the ever glorious Drew playfully for not allowing html in message boards. </snark>