Poll: Should George Bush be tried for crimes against humanity/war crimes?

[Anton P. Nym]

you sir have just said it all. Obama stoppig the torture is a step in the wrong direction that lets the terrorists win. If one person has to suffer so hundreds will live then so be it.

Thank you for volunteering. Please step up closer to the electrodes and remove your outer garments.

-- Steve

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Have YOU read the Guantanamo Bay Torture Memo- For Kids yet? [http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-guantanamo-bay-torture-memos-for-kids/]


Legally required disclaimer: Contains language, satirism, and precociousness!

 

[Rolling Thunder]

1. Torture, it does not work. This is a proven fact. Get the fuck over it, all of you 'lolz torture savez livez' people. You are all idiots.

2. It was war. In war, people die, and interestingly, the insurgents/Taliban do actually fit the bill of 'enemy combatants', as they do not wear uniforms, do not, in essence, behave like a military, attack civilians and are often not from the nation in question. In short, while they do fit the legal definition, they really should have been afforded a much better level of care- at least not being tortured.

Look, you can not say they are civilians- they shoot at soldiers. If they were, they would be criminals. Ideally, they would be treat as PoWs, but that to is unfeasible, as they have very little formal training and all the other problems I outlined earlier.

3. As a leftwing liberal, I supported Afghanistan, because capturing Bin Laden was a bloody good idea. Yes, we haven't, but there is an old military saying: "No plan survives contact with the enemy". Ergo, one shouldn't criticise either the politicians or the military for failing their objectives- unless you think you can do better.

I also supported Iraq, mainly because Saddam Hussein killed someone I knew. And his entire family- his mother, his father, their parents, his sisters, brother, aunts, uncles, cousins- the entire goddamn line was wiped out! And what a lot of people fail to realise is that the 'we've caused anarchy worse that saddam' argument is a fail. Saddam had to die sometime, and when that happened, there would have been anarchy as well. Only there wouldn't have been a sane, democratic state emerging out of that anarchy- at best, another miniaturised Stalin. At worst, another Iran.

4. Bush was a monkey, but of all the charges laid against him, only torture stands. War - a state may go to war where and when it pleases. Lying to the public - please. Every politician does that.

 

[Lord Kofun]

1. Beheading is not torture. A beheading is an execution, it only lasts for a short period of time, whereas torture, by definition, lasts for an extended duration
2. Lets put you in a cell, stand you up and keep you in that position for 48 to 72 hours and see if you still dont think its torture.
3. The UN weapons inspectors spent months searching for weapons sites and never found any, intelligence agencies spent millions, possibily billions searching for these weapons of mass distruction and never found a thing. Occams razor dictates that they were never there in the first place

Alright, if we're going to go down this road..

1 - You're right. Which would you prefer? In my humble opinion, I would prefer to stand for two days over having my head slowly cut off by a semi-blunt machete.

2 - If torture was a type of food, we are using baby powder. Do you have any idea what kind of disgusting and inhumane things were done to soldiers during the Vietnam War? Bamboo chutes under fingertips, nails driven through body parts, beatings so bad that heads would cave in, being fed to pigs and dogs, etc. You still want to say that what WE do is torture? It's irritation in comparison.

3 - If we're talking about nuclear sites, maybe not. Look up the gassing of Kurds during Saddam's rule. I am fairly certain that falls under WMD. Here's a link:
http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html
This paragraph is most relevant:

Spoiler

The Baath regime launched 39 separate gas attacks against the Kurds, many of them targeting villages far from the Iran-Iraq border. Beginning at night on Thursday, March 16, and extending into Friday, March 17, 1988, the city of Halabja (population 70,000), was bombarded with twenty chemical and cluster bombs. Photographs show dead children in the street with lunch pails. An estimated 5,000 persons died. Although some analysts say the gas used was hydrogen cyanide (not in Iraq's arsenal), others have suggested it might have been sarin, VX, and tabun. Iraq is known to have these agents. (Iran is not known to have hydrogen cyanide, in any case).

 

[cjbos81]

So what you're really asking is: Should President Bush be prosecuted, or do you love Freedom.

Well sir, I love freedom.

 

[Megawizard]

If Truman was never tried for the nuke drops, Bush will never get tried for something as simplistic as torture.

 

[Bill Door]

Hello! I am a regular visitor here, though not so active.
I saw this thread and had to respond to it.
People! seriously! who do you think are those guys overseas the US is fighting with?
its easy to think about them as the poor people, as those innocent people living their poor lives.
Are you THAT blind guys?? those Islamic nations exists way longer then USA, and they have a HUGE amount of natural resources... Then why are they living like this? how come they are not a huge superpower? the way of life in those areas is way different then what you know! That is why they are all living like this! you must understand your enemy and fight them by their rules!!! otherwise you'll have another 9/11 on your hands! and for god sake! Iran developing nuclear power???? do you honestly think they'll keep those bombs in a warehouse??? those bombs WILL get to the hands of terrorists!!! and you sit here and discuss putting a man in prison for trying to stop it! you are so naive!

I am disgusted every time "pacifistic" (i.e. stupidly naive) people talk like this about any war against terrorism, if its the US VS Iraq or Israel VS the Hamas. for the love of god! those terrorists sent a SNIPER not long ago that shot a 3 Y.O girl in a stroller right in front of her parents! using CHILDREN (!!!!) as human shields at gunpoint!!! and you all sit in your nice house and blame the only people who are brave enough to fight them. and yeah! innocent people get hurt! it happens when the enemy uses them as shields! blame the enemy for it!

here is a situation for you: you have a gun, a terrorist armed with an automatic weapon grabs a kid and uses him as a shield as he shoots at you and other innocent people. you shoot him risking injury or death to the child, or watch as the terrorist slaughters everyone around you until finally one of his bullets pierce your own head killing the only man able to resist the slaughter?

what ever! i was just so mad i had to blow off some steam... agree or disagree i don't give a damn... i just hope i wont be alive to see the first NUCLEAR suicide bombing, wiping new york, or Sidney, or London, or what ever city full of naive people...

and i know the topic is about torture... and i fully support torturing terrorists... and if a relative of yours should ever find himself in an exploding bus, or in the path of a missile, or in front of a sniper rifle, you'll think the same way...

allowing Iran to develop nuclear capabilities... how STUPID a man has to be to think its a god idea? pfft...

Well then let's just nuke half the worlds population and get it over with, sounds like a good idea? No of course not that would only generate more hatred of us here in the west and that would mean more terror. The only way to fight terror is through education and goodwill. Yes it will take a long time and yes there will be terror actions during that time but if we educate and help enough people to gain a better life they will not become suicide bombers or the like.
This might sound naive but it is the only long term solution that will work (except eradicating humanity, both western and others). War and torture although understandable in some cases doesn't solve long term problems. They only solve them short term and generate more hatred for our children to reap.

my dear friend! why is your life of lesser value then those of the people trying to kill you?
yes, educating them is the only real long term solution, but until they'll be educated, i wont accept the fact that there will be terrorist bombings! it is them that should die attempting to kill us, and not the other way around. and that should be achieved in any means necessary! it is very sad that innocents die, but given the choice, I'd rather the dead innocent people to be from the other side in the conflict. and you think the same as me! you just think its not "noble" of you to admit it! choose now and choose fast: a terrorist is about to launch a home made rocket at you neighborhood, blow his house killing him and his innocent family or wait and let him launch killing your next door neighbor and his family? well, for me its simple. and i am deeply sorry for the innocent casualties. (and i assure you he will not be that sorry if this was the other way around)

oh, and one more thing, torture works perfectly. i bet if i tie you to a chair and pull those torture techniques i can get from you whatever i want. so whoever it was that thinks that in all this time investigators got nothing useful through torture... well... that's a whole new kind of damaged reality perception i haven't seen yet...

 

[Panzer_God]

i say kill that inbred monkey

I would agree but that's a bit much, i want to beat on him at least though.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Are you people fucking serious?

 

[Azeban]

Why is everyone so against all kinds of torture? I think any means should be used if a terrorist chooses to withhold information. That is, if we KNOW that he knows the information. Yeah, it's terrible, but I'd rather see 10 or 20 Osama's mentally scarred for life than another 9/11. Believe it or not, there are people in this world who despise you and everything you stand for; people who can't be reasoned with; people who have been brainwashed.

What America Cuba is doing wrong is that we're torturing people that we are unsure about. People who may be innocent.

 

[Bat Vader]

I think they should do his trial in Iraq so he can get hung on the same gallows as Saddam

We should give him the trial Nixon never had. Or get another David Frost to interview him.

 

[Flying-Emu]

"If the President does it, it's not illegal!"
Yeah the guy was an ignorant douche with the lowest approval ratings EVAR, but he was still the President. Ex-presidents can't be expected to be held accountable for their actions in office. If he had been charged while in office, then it would be a completely different story. Besides, we all know he wasn't really calling the shots...

Actually

I think his approval ratings were higher than Bill Clinton after the intern incident or Nixon after Watergate.

Or Buchanan at all. Lol@Buchanan

/history

Yeah... he didn't do anything that can be tried for international war crimes. Yes, he ordered torture and declared the Taliban a form of personnel which does not exist in the Geneva Convention. No, he should not be tried. No, he will not be tried.

We should give him the trial Nixon never had.

No, we shouldn't. Nixon committed political subterfuge and sabotage, not war crimes. The punishment for political subterfuge ranges from simple removal from office to (I believe) jail time.

War crimes automatically require removal from office, jail time, and I believe the charges levied against George W. Bush would be cause for a death sentence from the international court of justice.

Nixon was also pardoned.

 

[Zamn]

I voted yes that he should be prosecuted, but frankly George W. Bush only behaved in a slightly more extreme way than a typical American President. If George W. Bush is to be prosecuted for war crimes then there are very strong arguments to be made for the prosecution of every President since Roosevelt and quite a few before him. Indeed, Obama is likely to have built a case against himself by the time he leaves office. America isn't unique in this either, most leaders of powerful countries commit war crimes, but the system of international law and war crimes prosecution is, and always has been, only applied to the losers.

Also,

War crimes automatically require removal from office, jail time, and I believe the charges levied against George W. Bush would be cause for a death sentence from the international court of justice.

Like virtually all civilised countries, the International Court of Justice does not impose the death penalty.

 

[hem dazon 90]

no he was basicly the wrong guy at the wrong time

george bush= unluckiest man in history

 

[edinflames]

It is as simple as this:

Bush started two illegal foreign wars.

Bush sanctioned the illegal use of torture.

Bush ordered the illegal use of extraordinary rendition.

Bush ordered the creation of an illegal detention centre at guantanamo bay.

Bush sanctioned the use of 'black sites' around the world where 'terror suspects' disappeared.

Anyone else see a common thread here?

Reality is of course that he will never be prosecuted, because he is an AMERICAN WAR CRIMINAL. /thread

 

[edinflames]

no he was basicly the wrong guy at the wrong time

george bush= unluckiest man in history

Unlucky would be the British Muslim taking a faith-orientated sojourn (organised by his devout parents in order to better teach him the faith) in Kabul that was picked up by Northern Alliance Mercenaries, regularly tortured by CIA/MI5 operatives and then detained in Guantanamo Bay for SEVEN YEARS without one shred of evidence linking him to Al Qaida.

 

[sneakypenguin]

How about we try all the house and senate members who where briefed on what we would be doing to detainees? Hell lets prosecute every single CIA, military, lawyer, representative, senator, and cabinet member, all of whom knew what we did and said nadda about it.


I personally don't think sleep deprivation, waterboarding and whatnot is torture. I mean if reporters undergo it I don't think it's too bad.

 

[ygetoff]

Recently with the release of the torture memos, some debate has arisen if the people who were responsible for the torture should be tried for there crimes. Now I would argue that while modern law of war would mean that people are responsible for there own actions, it would be profoundly unfair to try those who committed the actions but not those who ordered them(Indeed by the law of war officers are responsible for the actions of their soldiers, especially if they order them). This would probably bring the guilt all the way up to the top (even if George Bush wasn't aware/didn't authorize the torture [which I at least believe he did/was], as commander in chief he has responsibility to have control over the actions of the soldiers). Hence as torture is specifically forbidden in both the law of war and the universal declaration of human rights there is no doubt that George Bush has committed a criminal offence.

Even if you dispute the torture claims one cannot deny that George Bush has committed war crimes. By declaring the entire Taliban army "illegal combatants"(a term which for the record does not exist in the laws of war, it was just something George Bush made up), he has denied the Taliban fighters their rights as either combatants or civilians (The Geneva Conventions stipulates that all people in a conflict area must be one or the other) and hence clearly committed a war crime.

To try him there can be three possible authorities. Either the US which has signed both the Geneva Convention and the universal declaration of human rights can initiate proceedings against him. Moreover torture counts as a crime against humanity in which countries have universal jurisdiction, meaning that any country which George Bush visits can try him for it. Finally the international court of justice can step in and try a person for war crimes provided that the government the person belongs to (The U.S government in this case) is unable or unwilling to initiate proceedings against the person. While the US hasn't joined the ICC, most of the rest of the world have, and hence these could all send him to the ICC should he visit that country (some of the ICC members signed papers promising the US they will not send US citizens to the ICC however).

So do you think any of these authorities should try George Bush? Personally (in case you didn't catch the tone of this text) I am hoping for him being tried.

Theoretically, if you got Bush outside of the U.S., he could be arrested by a foreign country and tried for war crimes. However, nobody would ever try that, at least while the U.S. still has nukes.

 

[edinflames]

How about we try all the house and senate members who where briefed on what we would be doing to detainees? Hell lets prosecute every single CIA, military, lawyer, representative, senator, and cabinet member, all of whom knew what we did and said nadda about it.


I personally don't think sleep deprivation, waterboarding and whatnot is torture. I mean if reporters undergo it I don't think it's too bad.

So what is torture then? Was the Spanish Inquisition OK because they refused to draw blood?

Lets see how well you deal with those things. I'm fairly sure the CIA could get you to admit to whatever they damn well wanted using those techniques.