There is a somewhat similar thread on this. My main point is at the very end.
The only hope I have ever had in the administration has been in Colin Powell. I respect him so much that I even pronounce his name properly in private conversations. I would have voted for him for President had he ran and I think that he is one of the most distinguished citizens of our country. Therefore, when Powell finally turned the tide and started supporting the President’s policy in Iraq, I believed that there were WMDs in Iraq although I still disagreed with the need to go to war.
We went to war, toppled Saddam and began the search for the WMDs. This search has thus far proved fruitless despite the fact that we have investigated many of the sites George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz claimed stored or produced WMDs.
In recent days, Donald Rumsfeld has said that the Iraqis very possibly could have destroyed all the WMDs before we invaded, and Paul Wolfowitz said that WMDs as a justification for war was chosen for “bureaucratic reasons.”
If this is true, and Colin Powell himself did not believe what he was saying, then this has been the most elabortate scam in American military/political history.
It would humorous if it wasn’t for the fact that Iraqis, Americans, and Britons were killed in this war. The primary support for the war came from the WMD myth. People died and American alliances have disintegrated.
I therefore charge that if no WMDs are found and it is shown that the administration didn’t believe its own words, then George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Colin Powell should all be charged as war criminals with the possible sentence of death for their actions. They have displayed a reckless disregard of human life. The streets of Baghdad are worse than under Saddam if that is even possible.
No offense, but your agenda is glaringly obvious. Are you really looking for debate, or are you just looking for a soapbox?
If this is a real debate, I’d say that there isn’t much precedent for Bush and company to be charged as war criminals. Even if you prove that the WMD thing was a complete fabrication on their part, there are a half dozen other reasons that were given for the attack on Iraq, many of which would be incredibly difficult to “prove” false. War crimes, also, are generally lodged against losing parties; the concept is hardly a model of fairness and justice. Finally, who would charge Bush and his cabinet with the crimes? The concept of “international justice” implies that there is a power greater than the individual nation-state. As a concept, this really relies on having enough international backing to be able to assert this power, on a “super-national” scale. Who out there would have the backing (and the balls) to try to haul in the President of the United States?
I have some sympathy with your position, but as a practical matter, it is strictly Fantasy Island. Its a hell of a long way to the next election, but that’s about the only hope we have.
Besides which, there is the emotional angle: Americans simply will not believe that we are the “bad guys”. They are functionally incapable of such. Notice how quickly the whole WMD issue disappeared from the radar screen. If there were a serious foreign movement to charge Fearless Misleader with anything remotely similar to war crimes, the public would rally around him as though he were the martyred. Mr. Rove and his minions would mine that for all it was worth. And it would work.
I commend Mambo for his concern about the evil of the war of Bush and company against Iraq.
This board is also for witnessing in matters of religion.
But I am inclined to maintain that Mambo’s post can be covered under the broader umbrella of witnessing.
Congratujlations, Mambo.
I am sad about the war against Iraq. But my laboratory concern is with how people can be so inclined to war and violence on the one hand, and on the other so ‘unseeing’ of the real unjustifiable character of that war.
There was a funny story I read in my highschool days. A guy was snapping his fingers all the time. When asked why he was doing that, he said “to keep dinosaurs away”. But there are no dinosaurs around for the last several millennia. “Precisely because I have been snapping my fingers as far as I can remember,” he answered back.
There seems to be some connection here with the claim of weapons of mass destruction and their present reluctance to be discovered, now that all the access is available, and all the unearthing equipment and skills of the military and intelligence establishment are being utilized.
War criminal? I dont know... however if WMD are not found, technically (and correct me if I´m wrong with the following line of though) he would be in violation of the US constitution and laws, the US is a signatory of the UN chart; which states that the only just/legal/whatever cause for a war is for self defense against an imminent threat; no WMD, no imminent threat, the US in in violation of the UN charter... and this leads to the US constitution that states, I dont remember where or what the exact words are, that all treaties signed by the US become US law; so Bush violates the UN charter that US signed as a treaty; thus he´s violating US law… right?
Sorry for any spelling/grammar atrocity, I don`t have time for corrections.
True, but that doesn’t negate the fact that “I was just following orders” usually isn’t a valid excuse in the realm of international war crimes trials.
A large part of that evidence was derived from a UK WMD intel dossier.
That evidence has since been shown to have been largely a) copied from a 12-year-old university thesis, b) downloaded from the internet, c) distinctly removed from the real UK intelligence service. The second UK intelligence dossier has since been shown to have been d) wildly exaggerated, and e) completely fabricated.
The chorus of demands for Blair’s resignation is growing. I don’t think anyone could ever possibly get the “war criminal” shit to stick on Bush or Blair, but if Mr Blair isn’t in deep doodoo quite soon, I will be very disappointed.
I think there must be some distinction. Keitel was clearly prosecuting war in an illegitimate manner. Franks, most will argue, prosecuted the war in a legitimate manner (although you could make arguments with regard to cluster bombs, POWs, etc). If the war itself is deemed illegal, surely that would not be within his responsiblility?
I believe only a international court on war crimes can convict Bush of war crimes, and if I’m not mistaken they haven’t, also I don’t think they even tried so Bush is not a war criminal.
Soon after WWII, US Air Force General Curtis Lemay stated a number of times that, “I could very well have been guilty of war crimes.” The statement was in reference to his firebombing tactics which were used against Tokyo and other Japanese cities.
It would take a UNSC security resolution to set-up an international tribunal which the US and/or the UK could veto, so your line of reasoning doesn’t really work. Secondly, an international tribunal is not the only court with the authority to convict Bush of war crimes (though, depending on the terms it was set up on, it’s authority would supercede that of any other court) any of a whole number of national courts (though I think only Germany, Belgium and the UK have mechanisms to do this)have the authority to try anyone for war crimes.
