View Full Version : Is GW a war criminal?....you decide.

04-16-2006, 01:53 AM
the law (http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle0917.html)

First, right after September 11 President Bush called these attacks an act of terrorism, which they were under the United States domestic law definition at that time. However, there is no generally accepted definition of an act of terrorism under international law, for reasons I explain in my book. Soon thereafter however and apparently after consultations with Secretary of State Powell, he proceeded to call these an act of war, ratcheting up the rhetoric and the legal and constitutional issues at stake here. They were not an act of war as traditionally defined. An act of war is a military attack by one state against another state. There is so far no evidence produced that the state of Afghanistan, at the time, either attacked the United States or authorized or approved such an attack. Indeed, just recently FBI Director Mueller and the deputy director of the CIA publically admitted that they have found no evidence in Afghanistan linked to the September 11 attacks. If you believe the government's account of what happened, which I think is highly questionable, 15 of these 19 people alleged to have committed these attacks were from Saudi Arabia and yet we went to war against Afghanistan. It does not really add up in my opinion.

But in any event this was not an act of war. Clearly these were acts of terrorism as defined by United States domestic law at the time, but not an act of war. Normally terrorism is dealt with as a matter of international and domestic law enforcement. Indeed there was a treaty directly on point at that time, the Montreal Sabotage Convention to which both the United States and Afghanistan were parties. It has an entire regime to deal with all issues in dispute here, including access to the International Court of Justice to resolve international disputes arising under the Treaty such as the extradition of Bin Laden. The Bush administration completely ignored this treaty, jettisoned it, set it aside, never even mentioned it. They paid no attention to this treaty or any of the other 12 international treaties dealing with acts of terrorism that could have been applied to handle this manner in a peaceful, lawful way.

<hr /></blockquote>

No War Against Iraq!

For example, on Iraq. Right now they cannot use that War Powers Resolution to justify a war against Iraq. There is no evidence that Iraq was involved in the events on September 11. So they are fishing around for some other justification to go to war with Iraq. They have come up now with this doctrine of preemptive attack. Quite interesting that argument, doctrine was rejected by the Nuremberg Tribunal when the lawyers for the Nazi defendants made it at Nuremberg. They rejected any doctrine of preemptive attack.

Nazi Self-Defense

Then what happened after failing to get any formal authorization from the Security Council, the U.S. Ambassador Negroponte-- who has the blood of about 35, 000 people in Nicaragua on his hands when he was U.S. Ambassador down in Honduras--sent a letter to the Security Council asserting Article 51 of the U.N. Charter to justify the war against Afghanistan. And basically saying that we reserve the right to use force in self-defense against any state we say is somehow involved in the events of September 11. Well, the San Francisco Chronicle interviewed me on that and asked what is the precedent for this? I said that the precedent again goes back to the Nuremberg Judgment of 1946 when the lawyers for the Nazi defendants argued that we, the Nazi government had a right to go to war in self-defense as we saw it, and no one could tell us any differently. Of course that preposterous argument was rejected by Nuremberg. It is very distressing to see some of the highest level of officials of our country making legal arguments that were rejected by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

<hr /></blockquote>

Is GW using the same arguement as the Nazis?????????????

Q ...

04-16-2006, 08:55 AM
Interesting, but when any group of people declares was on America and our way of life, I think we have the right to respond in kind. Should we ignore the "Death to America" groups simply because they aren't a legitimate military organization from a specific country? The world has changed quite a bit since the 1940's.

Cueless Joey
04-16-2006, 11:21 AM
Saddam is for sure.

04-16-2006, 12:24 PM
Since you clearly point out that no war, exhists in the traditional definition of war, I would have to say the case is not made,that Bush is a war criminal. It would appear that there is a gross miss use of power of the office,and and on those grounds he should be impeached.

04-17-2006, 05:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> Interesting, but when any group of people declares was on America and our way of life, I think we have the right to respond in kind. <font color="blue"> With your reasoning; when GW called NK and Iran as countries that were the 'axis of evil', how should those countries respond? Dont you think that countries are more likely to seek WMDs if they are being threatened- like Iran is now? </font color> Should we ignore the "Death to America" groups simply because they aren't a legitimate military organization from a specific country? <font color="blue"> You should focus on those who are responsible and not others who are not, like Iraq. </font color> The world has changed quite a bit since the 1940's.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

You think so? Ever since the end of the war, the US has always had bogey-men. Everything was fine until Russia quit the arms race. Suddenly there was no more need to arm to the teeth and spend zillions on weapons that could never be used.
The US has not ruled out a neuclear strike on Iran. What would be your response to a similar threat from Iran?
Who is Iran a threat to?
Who was Iraq [ Saddam] a threat to?


Gayle in MD
04-17-2006, 08:23 AM
The point is....Afghanistan didn't attack us, nor did Iraq, and the terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia, and there were virtually no terrorists in Iraq, until we went in there.

Soon, more of our troops will have died, then the number of people who died on 9/11, the middle east is still heating up to more kaos, CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ, IMO, the Iraqis have voted several times, and still can't get their proverbial $*#t together enough to decide on a cabinet, or agree on a single appointee, and no less than seven generals have come forward to call for Rumsfeld's resignation, while our brilliant president has only one suggestion, STAY THE COURSE! WHILE our troops are in a quagmire in Iraq, which only gets worse, Bush is still out there, along with Rumsfeld, Rice and Cheney trying to convince us there is progress, when obviously, there is not only no progress, but things are worse than ever, including our Homeland Security, open borders, no operational FEMA, raging debt, and new republican indictments, and information on Election fraud, every week.

You remind me of those type people in law enforcment, and the general public, who just want to get revenge, any revenge, will do, just get even, somewhere, against someone, even it is against people who had nothing to do with the original attack.

Bush has broken laws, treaties, wartime agreements, sanctioned torture, and still you try to minimize his many poor decisions and failures.

Gayle in Md.
SO Proud I Didn't Vote For George Bush!

04-17-2006, 02:51 PM
He is definitely a criminal in regards to the NSA spying, the Plame incident, and has probably broken laws regarding his pre-war Iraq lies but I'm not sure about him being a "war criminal".

04-17-2006, 11:19 PM
You should read the whole article-I posted a link.

But basically there are two treaties on point here that are being violated at a minimum.

First, the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. I will not go through all of the arguments here but it is clear that just about everyone down in Guantanamo (not counting the guys who were picked up in Bosnia and basically kidnapped) but all those apprehended over in Afghanistan and Pakistan would qualify as prisoners of war within the meaning of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, and therefore have all the rights of prisoners of war within the meaning of that convention. Right now however, as you know, all those rights are being denied. This is a serious war crime. And unfortunately President Bush, Jr. himself has incriminated himself under the Third Geneva Convention by signing the order setting up these military commissions. Not only has he incriminated himself under the Third Geneva Convention, but he has incriminated himself under the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 or so, signed into law by President Clinton and making it a serious felony for any United States citizen either to violate or order the violation of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949.

The Federalist Society Cabal

I am not personally criticizing President Bush. He is not a lawyer. He was terribly advised, criminally mis-advised, by the cabal of Federalist Society lawyers that the Bush administration has assembled at the White House and the Department of Injustice under Ashcroft. President Bush, Jr., by signing this order, has opened himself up to prosecution anywhere in the world for violating the Third Geneva Convention, and certainly if there is evidence to believe that any of these individuals have been tortured, which is grave breach, let alone at the end of the day executed. So this is a very serious matter.

I did not vote for President Bush, Jr. But I certainly think it is a tragedy that these Federalist Society lawyers got the President of the United States of America, who is not a lawyer, to sign the order that would incriminate him under the Geneva Conventions and United States Domestic Criminal Law. This is what happened.

Jeopardizing U.S. Armed Forces

Moreover, by us stating we will not apply the Third Geneva Convention to these people we opened up United States armed forces to be denied protection under the Third Geneva Convention. And as you know, we now have U.S. armed forces in operation in Afghanistan, Georgia, the Philippines, in Yemen and perhaps in Iraq. Basically Bush's position will be jeopardizing their ability to claim prisoner of war status. All that has to happen is our adversaries say they are unlawful combatants and we will not give you prisoner of war status. The Third Geneva Convention is one of the few protections U.S. armed forces have when they go into battle. Bush, Jr. and his Federalist Society lawyers just pulled the rug out from under them.

<hr /></blockquote>

The point is, the Govt claimed Al Q was responsible for the TT attack, not the Taliban/Ahgahnistan or Iraq, but still they invaded both countries.
Torture, kidnapping and detention without trial, have become the trade-marks of US foreign policy under Bush.