I was reading a recent thread on what if we find no “weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq” and decided to take it one step further.
Under what conditions would Goerge W. Bush become a war criminal suspect in Iraq. What happens if we as an invading country inflict excessive civilian casualties or something else goes very wrong. What happens if the above happens and there are no WMD? Is there a possibility of this happening? Who would investigate and try him?
GWB could be tried as a war criminal in the US if it can be shown that he deliberately targeted civilians, with no reasonable military advantage to doing so, or wantonly disregarded the killing of innocents as collateral damage. The odds of this happening are pretty damn slim, because Bush is pretty damn unlikely to do any of those things. Even if he was insane enough to want to do those things, he’s not stupid enough to think he could get away with it.
If the US were participating in the ICC, then he would likely be charged with war crimes regardless of how the war went. Tony Blair has already been threatened with war crime charges if he aids the US in this war. Reason #1568 why the ICC is a bad idea.
Jeff
IMO
Under what conditions would George W. Bush become a war criminal suspect in Iraq?
The calm answer: If the American military goes out of its way to kill a whole lot of civilians. This ethnic cleansing, torture, and rape as well.
The cynical answer: Won’t happen, because the US is way to powerful and other countries are way to dependent on our money/military.
What happens if we as an invading country inflict excessive civilian casualties or something else goes very wrong?
The word excessive is tricky. If Saddam decides to hide a lot of his forces in civilian area, and the US decides to blow up buildings rather than engaging in dangerous urban warfare, it could be reasonably argued that Saddam caused the civilian casualties that result, and that the US military was doing its job at minimizing their own casualties.
What happens if the above happens and there are no WMD?
We already have a lot of evidence that WMDs exist, so that’s unlikely. However, WMDs aren’t the only stated reason for going in, so I doubt it will matter.
Is there a possibility of this happening?
No.
Who would investigate and try him?
The International Criminal Court would try him in absentia, since there’s no way we’d extradite him, even if he’s charged with crimes against humanity, which won’t happen anyway.
PS - Welcome to the Dope
Cite?
The first condition would have to be losing the war.
What do you want by way of a cite? IQ test results testifying that Bush isn’t stupid? Why must some people just say “cite” by way of rebuttal to something they disagree with, rather than actually formulate a response?
But just to be clear, it is my educated opinion based on the fact that I have not lived under a rock for the past couple years and I am not a conspiracy theorist that Bush is unlikely to do anything that would cause him to be tried for war crimes. Why? Because he probably doesn’t want to be impeached and go to jail. Do you need a cite for that, too?
Jeff
You are quite right.
Under international law starting a war of agression is indeed a (war)crime. The US hanged some Germans for it before it even was a law, remember. See Neremberg.
This isnot reason #1568 but reason #1 why he doesn’t want anything to do with the ICC.
He wouldn’t be responsible for any intentional civilian casualties though. The people commiting the act itself would be held responsible. Again, see Nuremberg.
Then again, unless the US loses the war and it is conquered by Iraq, no US military will be tried for warcrimes. Whatever happens.
Again, see Nuremberg.
ElJeffe, I think our pal David just happened to see an irresistible cherry pie cooling on the windowsill, and took the opportunity to knock it back into the kitchen.
I stole the other one. We’ll come back after we eat, eh?
Don’t mind if I do…
Especially since I know that people who assume that George W. Bush is unintelligent are only doing so because they heard it in their favorite media outlet and more than likely are just spouting what they’ve heard. He received a bachelor’s degree from Yale University in 1968, then received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975.
Now, I realize that the president was a connected man, through proxy. And I admit that you can probably get into either of these schools by ‘who you know’, but in order to graduate you had better generate some pretty heavy academic C’s. The president is not a dumb man, he does, however, lack some communication skills that have come around to bite him on the proverbial ass.
Ted Kennedy, incidentally, was kicked out of Harvard… Where’s all of the criticism for HIS academic career?
Sorry for the hijack… Continue on.
Chris
On second thought, I think Kennedy was kicked out of Princeton.
Well, I hope you realize that my request for a cite was sardonic.
On the other hand, Mark Shields reported on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer that GW has the distinction of being the only guy to be refused admission to the University of Texas Law School and accepted (on a legacy admission) by Yale. David Brooks of the Wall Street Journal, a Bush defender, was sitting right beside him when he said it and didn’t challenge the claim so I credit Shields with being accurate. In addition, GW somehow seems to have graduated from Yale without ever having learned to use the English language, sort of like some of those on an athletic scholarships. And since the athetes also get degrees that doesn’t necessarily mean too much, especially if your presence is valuable to the school, or your daddy’s support is. I’ve got to say that U of Texas has risen in my estimation and Yale has dropped several notches.
GW’s record, business or government, indicates to me that he is of average skill, or less.
Not in a war in Iraq, under the ICC’s powers.
The ICC can indict under the following circumstances, according to my professor:
-
For war crimes committed in the territory of a country that is party to the ICC treaty. (Iraq didn’t even sign, let alone ratify.)
-
For war crimes committed by a national of a country that is party to the ICC treaty. (The US has signed but not ratified.)
-
When directed to do so by the UN Security Council. (Luckily for Bush, the US and the UK have vetoes.)
The way I understand things (correct me if I’m wrong), Slobodan Milosevic was indicted not by the ICC, but as a result of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY, established in 1993). The ICC treaty did not go into effect until June of last year. However, both are centred in the Hague.
Nuremberg has nothing to do with anything, presently. The way I understand it, it’s obsolete in present international war-crimes statute.
American soldiers will probably not be indicted for discipline failures either, in an Iraq war. Even if they could, theoretically, be indicted, the ICC only prosecutes if the national court system of the country of which the alleged offender is a national cannot, or will not. I think that in most cases, military court-martials will probably be sufficient.
Moreover, the US government has been attempting to establish bilateral treaties with a number of different countries in order to prevent any possibility of foreign service personnel etc. being somehow indicted for war crimes.
W’s safe from the Illuminati, for the moment.
-Ulterior
I’m pretty sure he knows how to use the English language, he just has a really hard time with public speaking. Perhaps he makes up for it in his writing skills? He’s not stupid, but public speaking is a very important skill for the job he has.
Shrug
Even if this were accurate (which I do not buy at all) it doesn’t explain Bush’s ability to obtain a Masters in Business Administration from arguably one of the toughest learning institutions in the world.
I agree with that completely. As a matter of fact, I find myself immediately subtracting credibility from someone who has a degree from any ‘higher learning’ university these days. It amuses me to think that the one thing you abslutely DO NOT get from one of these ‘higher learning’ institutions is an ‘education’.
But this whole thing reminds me of the campaign between Gore and Bush where all of these UNINFORMED people were busy spouting off (actually repeating what they heard on the news) that Bush shouldn’t be president because he had no experience.
I was floored considering that the job that he was applying for was CEO of a country, and he had already been CEO of arguably the largest state in the union, as where Gore had never held a job outside of the public realm in his entire life and was never CEO of anything, not even his household finances!. He never worked in the places where you and I worked. Bush has. What has Gore done to deserve the job?
I just think that it is high-time that people stop watching so much TV and start fleshing out all of these assertions for themselves rather than just see or hear something on TV and assume that it is fact. More often than not, it is not fact.
IMHO, of course…
Chris
In answer to the OP I would repeat a very old gag. There are two chances, slim and none. And I don’t think “slim” is even in the running.
As to GW’s MBA, I don’t think it is beyond the realm of possibility that the grandson of a US Senator, the son of a high government official and a rich man with lots of contacts who could promote a school’s welfare would have an easy time getting a degree.
If I were interviewing someone who mangles the spoken word like GW does and who claimed to have college degrees, I would certainly like to look into just how he managed to get them before I gave him an important job.
And everyone who questions GW’s abilities isn’t blindly following the lead of the “libleral media” any more that those who support him blindly follow Rupert Murdock. Claiming that isn’t exactly a cite in support of GW’s skills. That is an empty and nonsensical argument and a cheap shot. Surely you can do better than that, Model-Shipwright.
And who is defending Gore and Ted Kennedy? Do you carry a supply of red herrings for every occasion?
I did not know that GWB had a a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975.
This is the man who makes such statements as:
“Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning”
–Florence, SC, Jan. 11, 2000
“It’s clearly a budget. It’s got a lot of numbers in it.”
–Reuters, May 5, 2000
“I understand small business growth. I was one.”
–New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000
Perhaps this explains it:
“How do you know if you don’t measure if you have a system that simply suckles kids through?”
–Explaining the need for educational accountability, Beaufort, S.C.,Feb.16, 2000
(quotes from: http://www.columbiacentral.com/dubya/)
I wonder if you’d be so quick to mention these fact in light of criticism of a candidate YOU thought was doing a fair job? Beyond the realm of possibility? No. Beyond the realm of likelyhood? Most likely.
Well, we’re only talking about the President of the United States since January, 2001. I would imagine if there was so much as a smidgen of evidence that supports your claim that he was given special treatment because of his family background it would have been dredged up in the rivers of the media long ago. Certainly someone as stupid as GW couldn’t cover his tracks THAT well!
Evidently, I cannot…
This is a very empty retort. I suppose my comparison to his running an entire state versus Gore’s being in charge of nothing lends zero credibility to who was the better candidate.
Yes, TONS of them…
Do you carry a quick reference card on how to effectively dodge any given issue in ten words or less while creating the illusion that you are addressing the OP? I was simply comparing the man to his “peers”.
And that is a major part of the problem. You did not know, yet it doesn’t prevent you from commenting.
Not exactly a master of ceremonies at an American Speechmakers Association, to be sure, but allow me to follow you around during the pressure-cooker height of your presidential campaign with pen and paper, scrutinizing your every word and action and let’s see what collasel screw-ups we witness.
Yes, I realize I mispelled colossal…
It is breathtaking to have someone use academic factors to prove that GW must be smart, viz -
quote: Model-Shipwright**
… but in order to graduate you had better generate some pretty heavy academic C’s.**
and then turns around an dengrates academic factors in almost the next breath, viz -
quote:Model-Shipwright**
As a matter of fact, I find myself immediately subtracting credibility from someone who has a degree from any ‘higher learning’ university these days. It amuses me to think that the one thing you abslutely DO NOT get from one of these ‘higher learning’ institutions is an ‘education’.**
However, let’s look at the record. After the 11 Sept. WTC attacks the US had great sympathy throughout Europe and elsewhere. That has been thrown away. The populations of most countries are against GW’s bellicosity and high handedness even where the politicians are willing to go along. I don’t see how this can be considered a mark of high intelligence.
One of Roosevelt’s maxims was “Never shake your fist and then shake your finger.” GW started out with the Iraq business at near the maximum intensity saying that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (dreadful phrase which can mean almost anything) and we would take him out no matter what others thought. The only way to go from there is to war or to back off and appear weak. Smart people don’t paint themselves, and the rest of us along with them, into such a corner.
Smart people usually don’t claim to have ironclad evidence which they never seem to be either willing or able to produce.
When GW finally went to the UN he said, in effect, “Well, we would like to have your agreement that Hussein has been ignoring us for 12 years, but we don’t really need it. Take it or leave it.” Smart people who are looking for help don’t usually go at it that way.
and finally -
quote:
And who is defending Gore and Ted Kennedy? Do you carry a supply of red herrings for every occasion?
quote: Model-Shipwright**
Yes, TONS of them…**
Can you cite one such post by me in this thread? I take no responsibility for others, but I can find any of them either.
quote: Model-Shipwright**
Do you carry a quick reference card on how to effectively dodge any given issue in ten words or less while creating the illusion that you are addressing the OP? I was simply comparing the man to his “peers”.**
I gave my opinion as to the OP question, and it has been well answered elsewhere. As far as comparing GW to his peers, so what? His peers don’t have their finger on any trigger. They haven’t been given a blank check by a foolish congressional action to invade another country on their own say so. And they don’t command an impressive military establishment. Dragging in Gore and Kennedy is a complete red herring introduced, I think, in hopes that someone will be so foolish as to take the bait and waste time in trying to defend them.
Your man and his cohorts have bungled the program, if they ever had a coherent one, and Rumsfeld has even managed to insult one of our supporters, Blair, by saying that his help would be nice but it really just a side issue. Great!
That statement, of course, isn’t GW’s fault but I haven’t heard him chastize the SecDef over that lunacy.
Go back to listening to Fox News. I’m done. The issue is decided because GW and his big mouth have gone past the point of no return.