Can the Crime Family be tried for War Crimes?

[goclark]

A friend that has RepubliCON leanings just told me that we are officially not "AT WAR."

He said that the Congress never declared us as "AT WAR" and this is only a "War on Terrorists" not a real War.

Did I miss something?

No Hague for the Crime Family ??:banghead:

[Ganja Ninja]

1. War Crimes - Crimes against Humanity.

6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other.

[goclark]

3. So the Congress does not have to declare war for

it to be deemed a crime against humanity?

Please tell me these CON Artists can fry!

Note: Does anyone have a link that I can show him?

[bullimiami]

4. what foolishness would have you believe that just because war wasnt

'declared' that war crimes cant be committed?

[goclark]

7. I am quoting a friend

I always believed that we were in a " WAR ON TERRA." --GWBUSH

[SteppingRazor]

2. By that reasoning, we haven't been at war since World War II...

but it's false reasoning. The Geneva Conventions explicitly state that a country need not officially declare war to be at war.

That said, the idea that Bush or anyone else from this administration, will be tried for something as serious as war crimes is kinda absurd

[aquart]

5. Where would you find an impartial jury?

Who on this planet has not been harmed by them?

[goclark]

10. I agree

If everyone on the planet could vote to punish them, no question,they would be looking at real JUSTICE.


I am dreaming of that magical day!

[magellan]

6. Evidently since we aren't part of the ICC

...there will be no Hague for these bastards.

[goclark]

9. So is it that we must be a member of the ICC to be tried at the Hague?

Does that mean that there could be another Court of World Opinion that could bring us justice?

[magellan]

14. That's my understanding

Somebody here straightened me out on this last week because I had said much the same thing: send them to the Hague. Afterwards I did a tiny bit of looking around and it appears to be the case that those who haven't signed on to the ICC aren't answerable to it. However, and I'd like to emphasize, I know squat apart from what I was told and my layman's interpretation of what I read. It could well be the case that there are alternative methods of getting this crew to the Haque...but I have a feeling that on the basis of extradition treaties alone we'd be looking at a long process regardless.

[Ganja Ninja]

17. I'm sure if public opinion were strong enough we could find ...

a court somewhere someplace. Especially if these oily bastards continue to play around starting wars and fomenting terror campaigns to try and overthrow governments. Perhaps a post war Iraqi government or Iran would be interested. Bush and his cohorts could simply board a corporate jet and suddenly find themselves being escorted by the USAF to another destination entirely.

[magellan]

21. That would be sweet! :-)

I think it'd have to be a neutral government for there to be a chance in hell of it happening, however.

That said, I've long supported the idea of throwing the entire Bush** regime into Abu Ghraib and letting the Iraqis show them their "gratitude". They deserve far worse.

[Ganja Ninja]

22. A quick stop in Cuba to change planes and they would be in ...

Iraq or Iran before anyone knew what happened. Their lawyers could complain all they want but it would be too late to save their asses.
It would solve a lot of headaches for a Gore administration and would really shock and awe the vast right wing conspiracy. People in the middle east might even see it as a peace offering.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. In answer I give you Henry Kissinger and Robert McNamara.

Still fat, free, and wealthy.

[goclark]

11. So true and we were not under the total control of NEOCON HITLERS

:scared:

[Asgaya Dihi]

12. I'd have to agree with the rest here

There hasn't been a declared war since WWII, didn't stop anything from Korea to the present day from happening though. It's not impossible that someone could be held accountable, but that's if the UN decided to find the courage to press hard enough and if we changed some current laws to allow it. Lots of ifs involved there, not impossible but not likely. I don't know what domestic options we'd have if any, might have better luck from that angle though.

[goclark]

16. Thanks for the informational links

I sincerely want them to be punished and not just in the polls.

IF and to me that is a BIG "IF" we are able to outsmart DIEBOLD we may technically win in the polls.

That said,we are dealing with people that will stop at nothing to gain and keep power ~ NOTHING.

[EVDebs]

13. Congress allowed AUMFs in Sept 2001 and Oct. 2002

that allowed 'authorizations of use of military force' under the provisions of the War Powers Act of 1972

Sept. 2001 AUMF
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm

Oct. 2002 AUMF
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

in both instances Congress abdicates ITS responsibility to Bush ("...at his determination..." wording) and ignores the War Powers Act of 1972's specific requirements for clarity and (truthful !) circumstances:

""SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. ""

War Powers Resolution of 1972
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm
from
Laws of War
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm

Being that WMDs are MIA, what exactly are the clear circumstances Congress has apparently rubberstamped ? They certainly weren't truthful circumstances...

It seems that Congress should be held responsible in the '06 elections upcoming for this Iraq fiasco alone, and the ensuing cavalcade of farkel-ups perpetrated upon the US taxpayer by the joy-riding Republicans in power. The righteous wrath of an indignant public needs to be heard ! The Dems that went along under the lies being fed to them can be excused.

[rman]

15. Not while they and other crime families are in power,

both in front of and behind the scenes.

[fooj]

18. If we aren't at war- LLP doesn't get to pull all of his "war powers" BS

Grrrrrrrrrrr...

[paparush]

19. Bush has said "We are at war..." publicly every time he opens his hole...

He's pretty firmly "on the record"

Do I doubt that these scaly bastards would flip flop in a heart beat and argue, vehemenently, that we are NOT at war? Not for a second.

[goclark]

20. And then THEIR Supreme Court would be behind them 100%

How much more can the world take of these criminals?