WAR CRIMES

Watching President Bush dance around the Geveva Convention issue on the news today made me think.

If it is discovered that President Bush or others of our Government or Military leaders actually ordered the torture of the Iraqi prisoners, should they be tried by a War Crimes Commission - at the Hague? They will have violated the Geneva Convention regulations and thus theoretically are liable to the world for those violations.

I personally don't think America has enough balls to admit the true culpability of the American Government to the world by allowing any American leader (no matter how low on the totem) to be tried at the Hague.

I just saw this article and hope it is just a precursor of "justice for all." I'd like to see the world step-up and take back their self-respect. The thing is, I didn't realize just how far Bush was willing to go to protect HIS agenda. Imagine giving Bush the only get-out-of-jail-free card.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Facing strong opposition, the United States announced Wednesday it was dropping a resolution seeking a new exemption for American peacekeepers from international prosecution for war crimes.

U.S. deputy ambassador James Cunningham made the announcement after a U.S. compromise that would limit the exemption to one final year failed to get support from key Security Council opponents.

Several council members refusing the compromise cited the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers and Secretary-General Kofi Annan's opposition to renewing the exemption for a third year.

Before the council meeting, Spain and China said they would abstain if the resolution was put to a vote and Philippines Ambassador Lauro Baja, the current council president, said he doubted that the United States had the minimum nine ``yes'' votes needed to adopt it.

President Bush's administration argues that the International Criminal Court - which started operating last year - could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops.

The 94 countries that have ratified the 1998 Rome Treaty establishing the court maintain it contains enough safeguards to prevent frivolous prosecutions and insist that nobody should be exempt.

Cunningham stressed that the United States is ``the largest contributor to global security and has special well-known interests in protecting our forces and our officials.''

``We believe that our draft and its predecessors fairly meet the concerns of all. Not all council members agree, however, and the United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate,'' he said after a closed council meeting.

When the court was established nearly two years ago, the United States threatened to end its involvement in far-flung peacekeeping operations established or authorized by the United Nations if it didn't get an exemption for American peacekeepers.

Cunningham refused to say what the United States would do when the next U.N. peacekeeping operation comes up for renewal in the Security Council.

In his statement, he said that ``in the absence of a new resolution, the United States will need to take into account the risk of ICC (International Criminal Court) review when determining contributions to U.N. authorized or established operations.''

William Pace, head of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, called it ``a victory for international justice'' and said U.S. concern about prosecution of American peacekeepers ``was always exaggerated.''

The United States circulated a resolution last month that would authorize a new exemption, but it ran into stiff opposition from court supporters.

Last week, Annan - in a rare intervention - urged the council not to renew the U.S. exemption, citing the Iraqi prisoner abuse and raising ``serious doubts'' about the legality of an exemption. He also warned against dividing the United Nations' most powerful body.

The International Criminal Court can prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after it was established on July 1, 2002, but will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves.

Besides seeking a new exemption from arrest or prosecution of U.S. peacekeepers, Washington has signed bilateral agreements with 90 countries that bar any prosecution of American officials by the court.

Cunningham said Wednesday the United States will ``continue to negotiate bilateral agreements'' to protect Americans.
06/23/04 15:49

quote:

---

Whether I think they should be tried or not is irrelevent in the face of reality, where they will never be tried. Too much money and interests lie in the way of justice

---

In the USA, they use terms like national security to cover up their wrongs as well. But then what can you do, we don't reeally have any control over their actions.

In Biology, we were talking about different diseases, and about mosquitos giving people sickle cell anemia, When the teacher questioned the class about what the biggest killer is these days, i couldn't help but call out George Bush!
It's so true.

hope you didn't get into to much trouble, but it is a good one!

Yeah, you want Bush punished when he breaks the law, but I'm sure you were a HUGE supporter of Clinton, who actually broke the law SEVERAL times while in various offices, not just the presidency, and also John Kerry has been found to have broken a few gun laws, but I guess we are just supposed to let them go, since you LIKE them, they are allowed to break the law huh?

quote:

---

but I'm sure you were a HUGE supporter of Clinton, who actually broke the law SEVERAL times while in various offices, not just the presidency, and also John Kerry has been found to have broken a few gun laws

---

I have noted you tend to go off (topic) in some rampage. Why is it these people go off about Clinton's actions or the screwed up in the election, guilt complex?
I knew that Bush was leading the US astray & so far everything that has happened only reinforces my conviction of that Truth.

It wasn't off topic. I was merely addressing the liberal bias that exists in our world today, as how if Bush commits a "crime" they want him thrown in jail IMMEDIATELY! RIGHT NOW!, but as Kerry and Clinton commit crimes, they fail to ever even mention that. So, I don't see it as off topic.

Topic: War Crimes -- Clinton committed what war crime? He didn't serve in the military did he?
Kerry, granted he did serve in Nam so he probably is as guilty of some war crimes as I am.

Clinton bombed about 2 different countries that didn't need bombing in the least, and ya know what? He did one of them on his IMPEACHMENT day, so if you want to get into the whole war crimes thing, he killed people just to have his impeachment postponed a day later.

BTW-I don't belive any of this bullshit. Bush would never order soldiers to torture any captives, now those UNDER him, who were probably in the field and had to watch their buddies get shot by an Iraqi terrorist, that I might believe.

BTW BTW- I think anyone caught committing acts of terror needs to be brutally beaten within an inch of their life, but that's just me.

Its prett much clear now that Rumsfeld was responsible for "relaxing" the rules on detainment and interrogation. Of course he may not have intended to have torture occur.

He (or the president) should resign for either endorsing torture OR being incompitent enough to let it happen. They are at the top of the chain of command, they are the ones responsible through intent or negligence.

So if your child comits murder, you should be sentenced to death because of something someone under you did? You people are just LOOKING for someone to blame, instead of just the people who did. And I can garauntee if we had a democratic president in office at this time, this topic would never have been created. Stop looking for reasons the get rid of Bush, he is a good Christian man with good Christian values and wouldn't condone such acts.

As the War in Iraq is based upon illegitimate (decptions) declaration then it is illegal. As this was authorized by Bush, he is responsible for it.

Oic. Name them please. And don't use the words "killing innocent people" or "lying to us about his motives" unless you can prove it. Because those arguments have been used up and are bone dry

"So if your child comits murder, you should be sentenced to death because of something someone under you did?"
He's not some dad. He's the PRESIDENT, he is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. He is at the head of armed forces and he is responsible for them. Obviously he cannot control what the soldiers do. BUT its crystal clear now that Rumsfeld changed the rules so that interrogations were more brutal, though he did not authorize torture, he created an environment where it was far more likely to occur.

Given that Rumsfeld and Bush are very close, Bush must have known of this and neither men took the precautions necessary to avoid this.

We can also talk about the captives in Guantanamo, which is again, dodging of human rights agreements. And Bush wants the US to be the "moral leader" of the world.