Probably. Are you ready to go after Clinton as well as Bush?
If he actually committed any. Do you have evidence for this?
Already given. Bombing Serbia w/o UNSC approval. That’s an act of aggressive war. But maybe that’s “just” a crime against peace instead of a war crime. Same general idea, though.
I would start by pointing out that your notions of equivalence seem a mite shaky.
Taking a police actions to stop war (and succeeding, btw) = lying into an aggressive war (and failing, btw), huh? :dubious:
Oh, wait - you once again had to find some way to say “The Democrats are the same as the Republicans, and thank Og I’m not one of those greasy, compromised participants”, and that’s what you could come up with this time.
Got it. :rolleyes: You need a new schtick, John. This one is seriously stale.
I never said anything about equivalence. It needn’t be equivalent to be prosecutable.
Starting a war of aggression is a crime against peace. Is it not?
So you don’t have any war crimes that Clinton did?
So you’re retracting that statement?
I said it might be “just” a crime against peace. Are you prepared to prosecute him for that? Or are crimes against peace off the table for some reason?
Clinton did not start a war of aggression, the Serbs did, he stopped a war of aggression by using force and the result… War Crimes Trials for the aggressors.
That’s exactly my point. Thanks.
Who is credibly calling it that? Every expert I’ve ever heard agrees that waterboarding is torture. Every person who’s had it done to them seems to agree.
Where is the consensus for the Serbian attacks being a crime against peace?
The Serbs did nothing to us, and were no threat to us. We interfered, without UNSC approval, in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. We bombed the shit out of them. It might have been for a good cause, but that does not make it in compliance with the UN Charter. It’s a direct violation.
According to legal experts, as of early 2008, 45 Serbs, 12 Croats and 4 Bosniaks were convicted of war crimes by the ICTY in connection with the Balkan wars of the 1990s. (from Wiki)
This is how a war crimes tribunal works, as many of the people responsible as can be arrested and tried. You might note that no Americans appear on the list even though Americans killed lots of people in the conflict, they committed no crime because they were stopping Genocide. This has zero to do with torture
It wasn’t a war of aggression, strictly speaking, but a purely internal affair. Technically, it was a Yugoslav civil war. That said, I believe NATO action was wholly justified.
[QUOTE=AgeQuodAegis]
What makes you think that the beneficial treatment of prisoners of war is one of our “founding values”? Because POWs were not treated well in the US’s early wars.
[/QUOTE]
Your citations show that our enemies didn’t treat US/Union prisoners well, not that we didn’t. However, that’s beside the point. The Bush Administration went out of its way to point out that WOT detainees were not prisoners of war, but “enemy combatants”.
I’m not talking right and wrong. I’m talking the reality of how things play.
The Obama administration could safely attack Bush and Cheney if there was a point to it. But a general attack on the Bush administration would be a bad idea frpm a political standpoint. You start going after cabinet officials and generals and agency heads - much less agents and servicemen - and people are going to start seeing this as Goliath attacking David. Regardless of the specific allegations, a lot of people are going to be thinking, “All these guys were doing was following orders from the people above them. And now they’ve got the entire government - the same government that gave them those orders in the first place - coming down on them and wanting to punish these guys for the government’s mistakes. Sure, what they did ten tears ago was wrong. But what’s being done to them now is wrong too.”
No its not, it is not a crime to stop Genocide in fact a reasonable case can be made that NOT stopping Genocide is a crime
Can you cite that part of the UN Charter that supports that view? The only exception to the use of force against another sovereign state w/o UNSC approval is if a country is in imminent threat of attack. Is it your contention that we were in imminent threat of attack by Serbia?
[quote=“Really_Not_All_That_Bright, post:74, topic:618043”]
It wasn’t a war of aggression, strictly speaking, but a purely internal affair. Technically, it was a Yugoslav civil war. That said, I believe NATO action was wholly justified.
Technically true, but I would say that the US did not start a war of aggression, it moved with support of the International community and NATO, the UNSC wasn’t going to move on this because Russia is an ally of Serbia, but Russia didn’t try to stop us either, that’s politics. The idea that war, if not approved by the UNSC, is criminal, is dubious at best.
This directly contradicts your assertion
Can you quote that part that you think contradicts my assertion?
It’s a direct reading of the UN Charter, which I quoted above. The exception is self-defense. There was no self-defense involved when we bombed Serbia.