Should Bush and Cheney be prosecuted for war crimes under these circumstances?

1. George Bush and Dick Cheney ordered a War of Aggression against Iraq. This constitutes a Crime Against Peace - for which Nazi leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials - and violates the UN Charter.

* Iraq never attacked the US or threatened an attack, so the US was not acting legally in self-defense, which is permitted under the UN Charter.

* Iraq played no role in the September 11, 2001 attack on the US and never provided material support to any terrorist group that attacked the US, so even the non-legal Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack did not apply.

* At the time of the US attack, Iraq was nearing full compliance with UN Resolution 1441 and prior resolutions requiring disarmament, and the majority of the Security Council believed UN inspectors should be given more time, so the US was not enforcing UN resolutions, as it claims.

Update:

# George Bush and Dick Cheney ordered the invasion of Iraq in order to bring about a regime change, which was never authorized by a UN resolution, and violates the UN Charter.

2. George Bush and Dick Cheney ordered the bombing of civilian areas like Baghdad (with 5 million innocent civilians) and Basra. This resulted in the deaths of hundreds of non-combatants, in violation of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949.

* Article 3(1): The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to [non-combatants]: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.

Here is a link....

http://elandslide.org/elandslide/petition.cfm?camp...

27 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    there is no doubt that there needs to be an investigation.

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who served as the chief prosecutor of the major Nazi war criminals, called starting a war without cause the “supreme war crime” because all other war crimes flow from it. Under the United Nations Charter, which is a binding international treaty ratified by the United States, it is illegal to attack another nation except: 1) when authorized by the Security Council; or 2) when necessary for self-defense and then only for as long as necessary to get the matter to the Security Council.

    The Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 that found Iraq in material breach of prior resolutions and warned of “severe consequences” if Iraq didn’t conform. But that resolution also explicitly stated that the Security Council remained seized of the issue and the United States assured the other members that Resolution 1441 did not authorize it to attack Iraq; the U.S. would have to return to the Security Council for another resolution before it could attack Iraq. In early 2003, the United States did return to the Security Council with a resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq. When it became clear that the proposed resolution could not muster a majority, the United States withdrew the resolution and attacked Iraq anyway. There is no crime more serious than illegally starting a war.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.i...

  • Pamela
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    And who, of the people who actually have the authority to do so, are "demanding that Cheney be tried for war crimes"? Can you name one member of the ICJ that has called for an indictment of the former vice-president? Do you even know what the ICJ is? Heck, I think OJ did murder his ex-wife and her boyfriend, but that does not mean that there should be another trial just because of what I think. The same goes for you, > Anybody who does actual research will tell you that websites are not true documentation. I asked you to name one (just one) member of the ICJ that is even considering issuing an indictment to Dick Cheney and you post a website that is not from the ICJ. Guess what, the three morons from "Loose Change" have a website. Is that evidence? Of course not. There is more evidence that Bigfoot exists. How about you have some refresher on how to do actual research and check out the ICJ. Then come back with what you have. >BTW. I did bother to do some research for on this matter. The ICJ deals with international agreements, not war crimes. However, the International Criminal Court does prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity; they have issued warrants to the president of Sudan recently. The ICC has received hundreds of complaints concerning the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but has not found any basis for issuing any warrants, much less indictments.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, there certainly is a case for their detention. Of course they sniffed the loophole in the UN resolution which reserved them the right to attack if Iraq was viewed as a threat to the west. They will simply blame faulty intelligence for influencing their decision.. intelligence which they probably knew was faulty, as they almost certainly planned the invasion years in advance. My guess is that theyd wriggle their way out out of lack of clear evidence.

    However, I think a clearer case for war crimes is illegal extraordinary rendition programmes in the middle east and across the world. There is no doubt that the Geneva conventions were routinely breached in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Rumsfeld's support for these torture programmes is undeniable. All the evidence shows that these breaches were not only known but organised and authorised by the highest level. Had this been a minor country with little influence and minor economy, there is little doubt warrants would be issued and sanctions would follow. Of course its a touch more difficult when dealing with the worlds foremost superpower and for this reason alone it is highly unlikely anything will follow. In retrospect however, Bush can stew the fact that many people will think he deserved to be prosecuted for his arrogant and wreckless disregard for international law and his own species.

  • 1 decade ago

    wow

    I know you are never going to pick me for best answer, but let me give you one anyway. A REAL answer.

    First and foremost, the government of the United States is not, has not, and never will be subject to the laws of the United Nations. The entire existence of the federal government of the United States of America is to protect and represent the interests of the union of states in regards to the rest of the world. Period. End of the story.

    However, to satisfy your specific issue- it is technically possibly the UN could bring formal inquiry into this matter. Will this happen? No. The United Nations are dependent upon the United States regardless of how you chose to look at it. This would be akin to biting the hand that feeds you.

    I would also like to address your points.

    1. George Bush and Dick Cheney ordered a War of Aggression against Iraq. This constitutes a Crime Against Peace - for which Nazi leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials - and violates the UN Charter.

    First, what does Dick Cheney have to do with this? The order was signed by the President of the United states and fits squarely within his powers as defined by the Constitution of the United States.

    Second, this was not a "Crime Against Peace" as defined by the UN Charter. I quote UN Charter, Article 51:

    "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

    We have to consider that the UN Security Council was and has been for some time involved with situation in Iraq. The Security Council also refused to act, and thus the measure taken was -- nothing.

    The one specific issue here would be that the charter specifies "armed attack" and this is the one technicallity the UN could bring to task. This assumes that the UN doesn't buy into the Congressional bill that Thelonius Deek so nicely linked to. However, the United States does not hold itself to that same restriction. The US simply requires a clear and present danger.

    * Iraq never attacked the US or threatened an attack, so the US was not acting legally in self-defense, which is permitted under the UN Charter.

    The United States believed Iraq was trying to attain weapons of mass destruction. Do we know now that it wasn't? That'd debatable but also BESIDES THE POINT. The President of the United States has an obligation to act when presented with what is believed to be a real and credible threat to the security of our nation. Had Bush NOT acted he would have been impeached and prosecuted for treason.

    * Iraq played no role in the September 11, 2001 attack on the US and never provided material support to any terrorist group that attacked the US, so even the non-legal Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack did not apply.

    No one ever said it did.

    * At the time of the US attack, Iraq was nearing full compliance with UN Resolution 1441 and prior resolutions requiring disarmament, and the majority of the Security Council believed UN inspectors should be given more time, so the US was not enforcing UN resolutions, as it claims.

    This is a contradiction. If Iraq was "nearing" full compliance, then there were NOT in compliance. Thus, the US was enforcing the resolutions. You can't have it both ways.

    # George Bush and Dick Cheney ordered the invasion of Iraq in order to bring about a regime change, which was never authorized by a UN resolution, and violates the UN Charter.

    Bringing a regime change is usually the outcome of a war, especially when dealing with a dictator. This isn't exactly hard to understand. What other possible outcome could there have been? It was not the stated purpose of the war but is by necessity one of the results.

    2. George Bush and Dick Cheney ordered the bombing of civilian areas like Baghdad (with 5 million innocent civilians) and Basra. This resulted in the deaths of hundreds of non-combatants, in violation of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949.

    OK... do a little more research into this one. On a tangent, I also suppose the US was wrong to use the A-bomb on Japan? Sure, just ignore how many innocent Japanese lives would have been lost in the case of a full out invasion of their homeland.

    * Article 3(1): The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to [non-combatants]: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.

    Where are non-combatants being treated like this? Perhaps you are mistaking non-combatants with unlawful combatants? If so, you need to find another argument.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I would say yes if Bush/Cheney weren't protected by the very laws that we have not taken the time to challenge. Too little, too late now. We elected the i*&0t's in the first place. What does that make us? I hate to say that we are accessories but we have got to know that we as the people have the power, we just have not used it. We have to ask ourselves, what responsiblity do we take in this? No, I know we didn't make them make the decision, please believe that's not my belief, but I just wish we'd realize that we have the power to change things - like we need a new breath of life in the White House, someone who'll know how to finesse our enemies and I believe that person to be Barack Obama. Out with old, in with the new.

    Just like if we took the time to boycott the oil companies, then perhaps we'd regain some of the control. It'll all take time, but with time and working with each other and a willingness to change, then great things can happen.

  • This is what makes America great. America is not accountable to the United Nations. Know one will know if America would have been attacked again if America did not make the move to go into Iraq.

    But to say if Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted for war crimes, NO!. What makes one think that these two guys would "deliberately" start a war to put America in danger? Not me.

    Many world events will continue to take place in the Middle East and they are going to get worse. God is trying to get the peoples attention to come to Him but they do not believe there is a God in Heaven.

    So give credit where credit is due, SIN and the work of the devil to take God's people to hell with him.

  • 1 decade ago

    Even if you accept that the Iraq War broke the UN charter, that doesn't constitute a war crime. Even Nazis who actively participated in the Holocaust weren't all convicted of war crimes following WWII. The standard is pretty high (well, erm, low).

    The only thing Bush did that has folks clamoring for his impeachment, war-crime trial, or just head on a plate was win a close presidential election as a republican.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Any rational, well-educated human being, after having reviewed the facts of the illegal Bush-Cheney dictatorship and their criminal actions in the U.S., in the Western Hemisphere, and around the world, will be completely compelled to assert, "Yes, they should be prosecuted." More than that, every single member of their foul, blood-thirsty administration all the way down to the press secretary and any number of key political appointments throughout the government should be imprisoned for a sentence of life without chance of parole. Their crimes, even in the most favorable light, are far worse than those that landed Hess in Spandau prison.

  • 1 decade ago

    Definitely, the US is subject to international law, like it ot not - in fact the US was a prime mover behind this international law after WW2.

    There is a big majority outside the US that favours this and this stupid act of political / military agression has devastated US image around the world.

    The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan has lead to an 'exponential' (i.e. tens of thousands of budding Bin Ladens) increase in terrorists and their supporters (tens of millions).

    This lead it to be described by Lt Gen William Odom - Ronald Reagans NSA director as the "biggest strategic disaster in US history"...

    I reckon he ought to know and I'd be fairly surprised if he could be fitted into a 'commie' category!

    Republicans (the few blind Bush supporting idiots that are left) should consider the issues carefully and quit the 'anti liberal, anti commie, anti rest of the world' rhetoric - you're your countrys own worst enemy!

    This war, based on obvious misinformation, destroyed the global alliance against terrorism overnight... so much for winning hearts and minds eh?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes, of course. And if this country ever gets to the place where the sycophants are removed from their appointed positions - the Spell will be broken and we can get back to the rule of law.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.