Plain And Simple, Has Bush Committed war crimes??

[Imagevision]

Yes Or No? --> If he Has Is It An Impeachable Offense?

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Yes, he has. And, in my opinion, I think it's impeachable -

though according to the Constitution, I don't know. But, since the president is beholden to abide by all laws of all treaties, and that includes the Geneva Convention and many others, I'm sure that a president committing those acts which are recognized by international bodies as "war crimes" is in an impeachable position.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. yes and yes

next question please.

[Imagevision]

3. Did Bush change the rules of the Geneva convention recently?

[grizmaster]

67. The rules of the Convention are still the same

bush has just chosen to violate them with impunity

[JDPriestly]

4. Apparently Bush ordered the renditions. Did that make them legal?

I quote:

In response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, the CIA has finally acknowledged the existence of a presidential order authorizing the agency to detain and interrogate terror suspects overseas.

....

However, the CIA wouldn't release either of the documents.

"The documents are withheld in their entirety because there is no meaningful non-exempt information that can be reasonably segregated from the exempt information," said the CIA letter signed by Associate General Counsel John L. McPherson (which can be read in full at this pdf link).

"The CIA’s sudden reversal on these secret directives is yet more evidence that the Bush administration is misusing claims of national security to avoid public scrutiny," ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero stated in the press release. "Confusion about whether such a presidential order existed certainly led to the torture and abuse scandal that embarrassed America."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/CIA_acknowledges_existence_of_presidential_order_1114.html

[MadMaddie]

5. Plain and simple Yes..

Slobadan Milosivich was directly and indirectly involved in killing thousands of people...


* approved the torture of prisoners....and so he should pay...

He has intentionally violated the Geneva Conventions..so what if he decides that he doesn't want to follow the law....it's still world law...and he and his accomplises should be tried and prosecuted at the Hague for "Crimes Against Humanity"!

[wtmusic]

6. Yes. Yes. But be nice, and don't do anything about it.

The Republicans were nice enough to let us win!

[kath]

56. RIght. We mustn't DO anything about it, because it might make people mad,

and hurt us politically.

Politics is MUCH more important than the Constitution, don'cha know?

[USA_1]

7. Yes he has ...

from an expert:


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bush_Gang/Bush_War_Criminal%3F.html

[Cha]

20. Thanks..

"Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the highest crime against mankind. It was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on. Ferencz believes that a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."

And it was a "decision" based on LIES for profit and political gain. And all those people had to die so bush could be a "war president"(sic).

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Yes and Yes

But, then, I'm an impeachment hawk, so what can I say?

[rhiannon55]

9. Yes

For lying us into war and authorizing kidnapping and torture.

To start with.

[Imagevision]

10. Maybe Nancy will be leaving it to a push come to shove option...?

[man4allcats]

18. I think your comment is very insightful.

She is a smart politician and so plays it as it comes. I believe when all the facts are in, she will support it. The following is worth noting:

In their Friday, November 10, 2006 report, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales of Democracy Now < http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/10/1426234 > (this link includes a text version of this report if you don't have RealPlayer or are on dial-up) discuss the possibility of impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney with former New York Congressmember Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the committee investigating Watergate, and with Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.

You can watch the RealPlayer version of this report on your machine by clicking here < http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2006/nov/video/dnB20061110a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=45:12 >.

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. Of course it is. Formal house inquiry ought to be started immediately.

[The Magistrate]

12. A Case Can Be Made For Two, Sir

The first is more technical and difficult, but the invasion of Iraq probably does meet the standard of "aggressive war" as it currently exists. There was no legitimate casus belli, no genuine need for self-defense, and the latter was certainly known to the planners.

The second is more straightforward. There is abundant evidence to fix command responsibility for torture of prisoners by U.S. personnel on the ocupant of the White House, and abundant evidence torture of prisoners by U.S. personnel has occured.

Obviously, these crimes would meet any standard for "high crimes and misdemeanors" employed by a reasonable person. They are certainly crimes of office, that indeed cannot be committed by a person without that person holding office, and was these that standard originally envisioned.

[Xithras]

45. The Geneva Convention doesn't even require torture for a conviction.

It bans physical COERCION or torture. I've heard thugs argue that waterboarding and humiliation aren't torture because no physical harm is being inflicted. In court, that could become a sticky point. Luckily we don't have to argue it. The actual quote from the Geneva Convention reads thusly: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind".

Even if someone doesn't believe that the acts constituted torture, it's unassailable that they were coercive and unpleasant.

[earthside]

13. Yes. Impeachment is NOT an Option.

It is a necessity.

Waging aggressive war is an international crime. This was established by the United States and its allies at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II.

The 'Downing Street Memos' along with other already offered public statements by former Bush regime officials are clearly sufficient to warrant the launching of a formal impeachment inquiry in the U.S. House. Bush, himself, with his own words has admitted breaking the FISA law -- a felony.

Should it be done? Absolutely.

See: Will They Turn a Blind Eye to the Destruction of the Bill of Rights? The Democrats and Civil Liberties By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

If Bush threatens to veto the resurrection of US civil liberty, the Democrats can impeach Bush as a tyrant as well as for pushing America into an illegal and catastrophic war on the basis of lies and deception.

"Governing" will be meaningless if Bush's tyranny is allowed to stand.

[Vorta]

14. I don't think it's that simple

I can't think of an instance when a nation not in submission has allowed its president to be tried for a war crime. I am not going to support the submission the president of the United States, a sovereign nation, to the governance of foreign powers. I don't care if he is the biggest piece of crap to sit in the chair since the 19th century. To do so would be to support the submission of the United States, and that is unthinkable.

[man4allcats]

17. Throw the bum out

and his VP too!

[Vorta]

29. Weigh the consequences

These are vicious and petty people. They have demonstrated their willingness and ability to bring progress to a grinding halt when out of power and to exact revenge when in power. They did their very best to trash the Carter and Clinton presidencies over Watergate. They enjoy consider popular support and enormous financial support. Their tentacles run deep into the military, the churches, and the bureaucracy.

The way to deal with them isn't surrender, but waving a gun at them doesn't work because they know we won't use it. The difference between us and them is that we aren't willing to destroy the country and while they would never see it that way, they are.

[The Magistrate]

30. Trial For Such Crimes, Sir

Is quite within the power of a nation's own courts. Indeed, it is the duty of a nation's own system of justice to conduct them where their own citizens are involved: international or foreign courts become a factor only when a nation demonstrates it will not enforce the relevant laws against its own citizens.

[man4allcats]

46. Metaphorically speaking,

I am willing to use that gun. When the principles of democracy are at risk, the fire power of the judicial process is a useful, powerful and appropriate tool. It is not enough that we have regained power. A strong message must be sent, and I for one do not fear these bastards and any threats of retaliation they may make. If they want to fight, they've come to the right place. If they take me on, they better kill me. Again I say, throw the bums out!

[rosesaylavee]

52. That's why we are going to impeach him ourselves.

[Finder]

69. Similar to why abusive priests are transferred rather than turned over.IMO n/t

[man4allcats]

15. Yes he has, and both he and Cheney should be impeached.

Check out the following links for starters:

Bush and capital crimes and more Bush and capital crimes.

[irislake]

16. Undoubtedly

the mind boggles! This is the most criminal and murderous regime in the entire history of the U.S. (I think.)

[Royal Sloan 09]

19. Yes, to both questions

simple, now what will be done, and how long will it take?

[bobthedrummer]

21. Yes, but we need to get our Constitution and Bill of Rights back to impeach.

[mtnsnake]

22. Yes, yes, and we have the votes to do something about it

[puebloknot]

27. ...and we have the votes...

I would like to know on what basis you make that statement.

BTW, I strongly support impeachment, am very cognizant of Nuremberg, and feel that we are heading for disaster if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are allowed to set the agenda for us.

I have been discussing the "votes" issue with some others, and we all feel that it's possible that we could find the votes. The election shows a razor thin margin of Dems, but the whole country is in turmoil, some Republicans may be willing to ditch total party loyalty in favor of a dim memory of an America that served us all better.

Stupidly optimistic? Maybe, but we don't know if we don't try.


Judy Barrett, Citizen
United States of America

[mtnsnake]

31. You don't think we have the votes to do something about it?

FYI, impeachment starts in the House, and it only takes a one vote majority in the House to impeach. So tell me why we don't have the votes to do something about it if you disagree.

And before you go off telling me that we need many more votes than that to convict, yes, I realize that.

Having "the votes to do something about it" is having a one vote majority to impeach...and in my book, impeaching is doing something about it.

[alfredo]

34. What good is impeachment without removal. Removal takes

67 votes in the Senate.

Mitch McConnell is now the minority leader. He is the money man in the Republican party. Piss him off and your money will dry up. I don't think there are enough Senate Republicans with the courage to do the right thing. They know that not only will their RNC funds dry up, but there will be a well financed Republican opponent in your next primary.

Let's put our efforts towards building a case for war crimes charges. If we don't do it, the international community will. Best keep it within the "family."

[mtnsnake]

51. It's better than doing squat.

[alfredo]

57. Just wait, the investigations will come quick and heavy. We

already know Cheney is going to refuse to testify.

The Republicans made a big mistake a few years ago when they tried to remove Clinton. I think if we did impeach it will be seen as revenge for Clinton's impeachment. I also doubt the many Republicans would vote to remove bush, no matter how serious the charges and how compelling the evidence. We will need 67 votes. I have little faith they would put the law above party loyalty.

Maybe death by a million little cuts could be a better solution. It wouldn't be a lazar beam on bush, but an indictment of bush, his cabinet, and the Republicans. Removing one incompetent man making Cheney president and the anointed 08 candidate vice president may not be best course. Nothing is really solved other making Cheney the official president.
The focus should be restoring our Democracy. It would force the administration into a corner. They are being investigated and all their dirty laundry is being exposed to the world. It would look really really bad for bush to resist the reestablisment of our freedoms.

Bush isn't going to have many options, his ass is in a vice. The harder he struggles the more it will hurt. Restoring our democracy is more important than the fate of one man.

[puebloknot]

55. I would love to think...

...that the international community would step in and rescue us. I've written, a bit tongue in cheek, that Europe owes us for WWII, and that I am standing on an eastern shore of America, waiting for an invasion force to launch a beachhead and a rescue operation.

We haven't signed on to ICC. I read somewhere that they have no jurisdiction over Bush because of that. Do you know if Bush, et al. could be tried at the Hague under a different provision? Would it take setting up a special tribunal, like Nuremberg, to charge criminally? Yes, better at home, but if that doesn't happen...

I support impeachment, but I fully realize what you are saying about removal. I just am a fool of an optimist, and think we might do the impossible. More to the point, there is a constitutional requirement to impeach for malfeasance. Of course, the constitution is in a locked closet somewhere, so that argument may fall flat, too.


Judy Barrett, Citizen
United States of America

[GOTV]

35. That's where you're wrong...

Impeachment by itself is nothing.

Clinton was impeached and it cost him nothing.

Impeachment without conviction is vindication - just like anyone else who is accused and beats the rap.

Your book, is not correct.

I'm all for impeachment, when we have the 67 votes needed for conviction.

[mtnsnake]

49. Great strategy. Don't try because you might fail. Makes a lot of sense

Your book is weak.

[puebloknot]

39. How have I offended thee?

I must have been off my game when I wrote my message to you because I had *no* intention of challenging your position. I just wondered if you had inside information about gathering the necessary votes to convict in the Senate. That's all.

I fully support impeachment, whether we know in advance we have the votes in the Senate to convict or not. I've been posting a lot of messages in this regard.

The moment one of the coming investigations turns up evidence of malfeasance on the part of the executive, there is a constitutional duty to impeach. Of course, George says the Constitution is just a "god damned piece of paper." We can rant on and on about this, but if Congress doesn't act to reverse some of the recent hellish legislation they've helped to enable, none of this means anything.

I think we're on the same page!

[mtnsnake]

50. WTF? I said we have the votes to do something about it. You mocked that

statement by quoting this part "and we have the votes", and then went on to tell me that you "would like to know on what basis you make that statement", which tells me that you didn't realize that it only took a one vote majority in the House to impeach. Then instead of admitting your mistake, you made believe that I was talking about conviction, not impeachment. You didn't offend me. Nice try, though.

[puebloknot]

54. I truly...

... have no idea what has set you off, but my post to you was intended to be supportive, and to politely ask if you had information I do not have about votes. I was anticipating an instructive reply!

I have not mocked you. And in future, msnsnake, I will avoid troubling you any further.

[mtnsnake]

63. Since you were anticipating an instructive reply....

let me try once again.

I made a positive response to the OP by stating that we had the votes to do something about it (impeachment, since that was what the OPer asked about).

You then commented that you'd like to know upon what basis I made that statement, which implied that perhaps you didn't realize that it only takes the House a one vote majority to impeach.

I then informed you that it only takes a one vote majority to impeach.

You then replied with a snarky message, "Have I offended thee", trying to make like I was talking about conviction, when it was perfectly clear all along that I wasn't.

You then replied with another post, implying that I had never answered your question as to what I based my statement on that we have the votes to impeach, spinning it like you NOW meant that you were talking about conviction, when we both know that wasn't the case of what you asked me in your initial post.

And in future, msnsnake, I will avoid troubling you any further

That's fine, but in the future you can save everyone a lot of time by simply admitting your initial mistake, which would eliminate the need for subsequent tiring analysis of you-said/I-said.

[FtWayneBlue]

23. yes and yes.

my 0.02

[SusanaMontana41]

24. Yes and yes.

n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Yes he has.

Invading Iraq was a war crime on its face. Iraq posed no threat to its weakest neighbor at the time and the UN Security Council never voted an authorizing resolution. The junta did not press the invasion as a humanitarian intervention, but according to Human Rights Watch, that argument doesn't hold water, either, at least not as far as the Spring of 2003 went.

The invasion of Iraq was a naked war of aggression. So even before we get to how many people have died as a result of Bush's imperialist war, it's a crime. It is a violation of the UN Charter, which is the supreme law of the land as a treaty entered into by the United States according to Article 6 of the Constitution.

He lied to start the war. This was not bad intelligence. Any evidence that Saddam had no WMDs or wasn't seeking uranium in Africa was simply suppressed. The OSP was editing the ambiguity out of intelligence reports in order to make an uncertain case sound certain.

At the very least the policymakers in the junta knew that they didn't know what they claimed to know with certainty: that Saddam possessed a large biochemical arsenal. Where I come from, that's called lying.

Is it an impeachable offense? It most certainly is. Why do you ask? Is murder not a criminal offense in all fifty states?

[leftofthedial]

26. yes

impeachable

AND

subject to internaitonal tribunal

[LeftishBrit]

28. Yes.

Don't know whether anything can be done about it in the current political climate; but I like to hope that one day he and Cheney and Rumsfeld - and Blair - will face trial at the Hague.

[greeneggs708]

32. Are You a Judge

Maybe yes, maybe no. Have you been alive for the past five years. They will just scream national security and your little plan will go nowhere.

Go to Iraq and see if they give a flying chit about your little plan.

They want this mess cleaned up.


Your plan is just to give you something to do so you don't have to do any hard work.

[JamesJoyce]

33. No

Terrorists don't have rights under the Geneva Convention.

[Coaster City]

36. What are war crimes?

Doesn't anybody find it interesting that they want to hang Saddam for his retaliation and killing less than 150 people after an assassination attempt while the neo-cons claim he killed 1/2 million people? Strange they can only convict him on a little over 100? Wouldn't Bush be liable for killing the 100,000 that are collateral damage for his botched attempt in finding WMD?

[USA_1]

40. Yup...

please see my post above.

[rosesaylavee]

53. 650,000 is the most recent number. n/t

[Richard Steele]

64. And EVERYONE we've blown up or tortured was a terrorist, right?

Pfft. :eyes:

[jpwhite]

37. need someone to admit of a plan before 9/11

I think in order to make a strong case you have to find someone who is willing to admit that there were meetings before 9/11 to go into Iraq. A lot of people claim that Bush lied about the war. Well, if you can find someone who will admit that there were invasion meeting pre-9/11 then you have your case. If not, the best thing you can do is show that congress under the GOP failed to provide oversight, which would discredit them in 2008 when they try to regain control of the Congress and when they try to keep the White House.

James
[e-mail]

[Senator]

38. Terrorizing the American People is not really a war crime

Impeachable? Yes. But not something you go to the Hague for.

The war crimes have already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court in Hamdan: Geneva has always applied. In other words, 3 years of war crimes have already been committed.

But as to your general point, non-premeditated murder is still murder.

---

[Lars39]

41. Yes and Yes.

And I want to see him and his cohorts at The Hague for them.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. I want a real Abu Ghreib investigation before I determine that

When the higher-ups at the Pentagon and the White House have to plead the 5th when asked if they approved the torture, then I'll start leaning toward war crimes.

[Zhade]

43. This is in question?

The war was based on lies. There's evidence they planned it before 9/11, and abundant evidence that they lied us into warring on a nation that was not a threat to us.

Aggressive war is against international law, and a war crime.

This isn't even up for debate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. Yes, according to the standards established at Nuremberg

One of the crimes the Nazis were condemned for was "waging aggressive war."

[God Almighty]

47. Absolutely

And anyone who takes impeachement off the table is acquiencing in his crimes and should be nailed with aiding and abetting a war criminal and enemy of our country.

[calimary]

48. As we used to say in college (usually after carousing a little too much):

Does the Pope shit in the woods with Catholic bears?

While I'm no legal expert, I'd have to say a HUGE "YES"!!!

[puebloknot]

58. Colorful...

...and right on target. And if anyone wants to criticize you for that, here's what they're facing.

Three miners in the woods. One is the cook, but he's never cooked before. The rule is if anyone complains about his cuisine, the complainer gets to take over as cook.

Our novice cook throws some moose turds in a crust, and serves it up. His companions turn red, almost choke, and say, "OMG, this tastes like *moose turd pie.* But it's good"!!!!! :)

[JamesJoyce]

59. Inapropos

nt

[davekriss]

60. Absolutely YES and YES (n/t)

[Demi_Babe]

61. YES

[Greyhound]

62. Committing a war of aggression is the original crime.

This and his additional admitted and blatant crimes are exactly what the impeachment process is for.

[SouthernBelle82]

65. Yes

Look at the Nuremberg trials. The whole point was to keep a future president from invading a country like Hitler did which is exactly what Bush did with Iraq.

[grizmaster]

66. Yes, and by his own admission

[nolies32fouettes]

68. ha ha plame's lawyer going after Cheney using the Clinton v Jones

rulings.

Original article somewhere on du, but I wrote about it here too:

http://www.progressiveu.org/144109-plame-case-may-use-paula-jones-lawsuits-precedence-to-force-cheney-to-testify