So the fucking war criminal is lying before Congress again

[Hugabear]

Too bad we can't just go ahead and arrest him, along with Bush, Cheney, Rice, and the rest of the goddamned crooks and liars who have gotten us into this mess. Looks like they're not content with Afghanistan and Iraq, they want to take down Iran and Syria before they leave office. MOTHERFUCKERS.

[elleng]

1. The war criminals are bush, and cheney.

We can't blame professional military, imo.

[Hugabear]

2. We sure as hell can

Especially the senior officers who carry out illegal orders.

This would be like holding Hitler, Goerring, Goebbels, and the rest of the senior Nazi cadre accountable, but not going after the camp commanders and other Nazi officers who ordered and carried out war crimes.

[Buzz Clik]

6. More fucking Nazi comparisons. Enough.

Our excursion into Iraq is immoral and probably illegal, but get a grip already.

[patrice]

8. Thanks! for that.

:hi:

[Hugabear]

10. I will make comparisons where they are warranted

Why do so many people want to act like we should never compare anything to Nazi Germany? Are we not supposed to learn from our mistakes?

Nazi Germany taught us that simply "following orders" is NOT an excuse - yet I constantly see people here on DU making that very same excuse.

[Buzz Clik]

15. I have no doubt that you will continue your comparisons.

[Occulus]

21. I phrase my objection to their objections thusly:

Godwin can go straight to hell.

[Hugabear]

24. Thank you

Glad that someone gets it. If we refuse to learn any lessons from the past, we're doomed to repeat them. And just because we're not seeing anything on the scale of WWII doesn't mean that we're not seeing the same mistakes being made.

[Buzz Clik]

33. Godwin nothwithstaning -- there is no comparison. It's hyperbole at best.

[Buzz Clik]

5. I completely agree.

[patrice]

3. Sens. Levine and Kennedy, Tear Down this FACADE.

End CHARGE-and-SPEND PRIVATE-Wars 'R "Us".

NGU, DU!

[Buzz Clik]

4. Are you calling Petraeus a war criminal?

I am 100% opposed to our activities over there, and I recognize that Bush/Cheney should be wearing orange jump suits along with their enablers -- Scooter, Karl, and John Yoo.

But calling Petraeus a war criminal? No.

[patrice]

9. Good work.

:hi:

[OwnedByFerrets]

11. War crimes can be commited by military and civilians.....

"In the context of war, a war crime is a punishable offense under international law, for violations of the laws of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. War crimes can be committed during international armed conflict or internal armed conflict (see Tadic ICTY 1995. Formerly war crimes were limited to international conflicts but this has changed over time as the International Human Rights regime has gained in momentum.

War crimes such as perfidy have existed for many centuries as customary law between civilised countries, Many of these customary laws were clarified in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The modern concept of war crime was further developed under the auspices of the Nuremberg Trials based on the definition in the London Charter that was published on August 8, 1945. Along with war crimes the charter also defined crimes against peace and crimes against humanity, which are often committed during wars and in concert with war crimes, but are different offenses under international law."

[Buzz Clik]

13. Well, that was irrelevant. Instead of quoting laws, how about dishing up some facts:

What war crimes did Petraeus commit?

[gratuitous]

20. Collective reprisals, targeting civilians

Not taking every precaution to protect non-combatants. The list is pretty extensive, and there's lots of duplication. And if the troops aren't responsible because they're mad or scared, and the commanders of the troops aren't responsible because they're not on the scene, who is?

The trials of the troops and their commanders would have a decidedly different outcome if it weren't their comrades in arms sitting in judgment of them, that's for sure. "Death before dishonor" my sweet Aunt Fanny.

[Buzz Clik]

32. Targeting civilians versus not taking precautions to protect them. Those are quite different, and ..

...you're wrong on both counts.

And if the troops aren't responsible because they're mad or scared, and the commanders of the troops aren't responsible because they're not on the scene, who is?

Soldiers who willingly and knowingly violate the laws that govern their actions hold the responsibility for their actions. If they were ordered to do so by a superior officer, then the superior issuing the orders is responsible.

As for targeting civilians by Petraeus, that's pure bullshit. I am very much opposed to this war, but I refuse to engage in this kind of brainless accusation.

[gratuitous]

36. Haditha?

Or is that too far gone to remember anymore? Abu Ghraib? Any soldiers serving time for those atrocities? Any commanders convicted for either a failure to command or supervise? Any of them brought before an independent review board, instead of their fellow soldiers?

No, No, No, No, and No.

Samarra rocket attacks? Tikrit helicopter attacks? No civilians "targeted," they just happened to get killed, I guess. By remote control from miles away by a guy pushing a button.

And those are just the attacks we've heard about that have been admitted by our military. I'm willing to bet there are more. And nobody's been held accountable, and nobody's been charged. I'm paying for it, and I want to know what's being done in my name with my money.

[Buzz Clik]

38. You're blaming Haditha on Petraeus?

For Christ's sake... you might check to see which branch of the service was involved in Haditha and which branch Petraeus belongs to.

[gratuitous]

39. Okay, Petraeus wasn't in the military

When Haditha happened, Petraeus wasn't in the military. He apparently was full-born with those stars on his shoulders just a year or so ago. He's certainly done a bang-up job bringing the perpetrators of that war crime to justice. Or isn't that part of his purview as supreme commander?

But let's look at more recent history:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/22/iraq.main/

March 22, 2008:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Six Iraqis were killed Saturday when a U.S. helicopter fired on a small gathering at what may have been a pro-U.S. group's checkpoint, officials said.

Who's being prosecuted for these six murders? Or this one, from October:

Helicopter attack in Baghdad kill 11, mostly civilians: US
Published Date: October 24, 2007

BAGHDAD: The US military said it killed 11 people in a helicopter attack on a group of men seen planting a roadside bomb north of Baghdad yesterday, but police and residents said the dead were farmers, women and children.

The US military acknowledged that six of those killed were civilians and said it regretted their deaths.

Well, at least the murderers feel regret. I'm sure that Gen. Petraeus is tracking this one down like a bloodhound on a fresh scent, right?

Killing civilians and failing to protect them used to be a war crime, but I realize that in the Imperial United States of America everything's good. Or at least it's perfectly all right as long as our military sits in judgment of its own. Big surprise there. And failing to bring previous perpetrators to justice before independent tribunals is tantamount to being an accessory after the fact. Is that a high expectation? You'd better believe it. Is it too high? I think not.

So, there are 17 war crimes that demand investigation by an independent tribunal. But there's no shortage of Americans who think our military can do no wrong, or that every wrong is excusable. And we'll all be very upset when "terrorists" who "hate us for our freedom" visit a little revenge on us for this and other atrocities. Which will give us license to go on another killing spree that will invite another response.

[Hugabear]

12. So carrying out and executing war crimes is not a war crime?

That's news to me.

[Buzz Clik]

14. Go for it -- list the crimes the Petraeus committed.

[Buzz Clik]

17. Ummm... about those war crimes....

[Hugabear]

18. Here ya go

First of all, he's overseeing the illegal occupation of Iraq.

Secondly, generals are responsible for whatever their forces do or fail to do. Some of our troops are engaging in war crimes in Iraq, bursting into houses in the dead of night, kidnapping civilians, and engaging in torture.

And now this motherfucker is lying his ass off before Congress, telling us that everything is okay, that the violence we're seeing now is "proof" that somehow we're on the right track.

[Buzz Clik]

28. It seems your problem is with the existence of a military.

We really have little to discuss here.

[NJSecularist]

29. Amen. This stuff about General Petraeus being a war criminal is ridiculous.

He's a liar, but not a war criminal.

[patrice]

7. END this IMMORAL WAR! nt

[ladjf]

16. Why is America crazy enough to allow these criminals to run the

show?

[muryan]

19. You've lost me

Our military are not the enemies, I don't agree with what patraeus is saying but I in no way see him as a war criminal. You won't find someone who wants to end the war as much as I do but these off the handle nazi comparisons are unwarranted.

Also, I have absolutely no problems with us having troops in Afghanistan and while that falls into the category of things bush has fucked up, it is not something i would categorize with Iraq.

[Hugabear]

22. I'm going to say it again - the "Nazi comparisons" are sometimes warranted

You know, sometimes the shoe really does fit.

Nobody's accusing Petraeus of constructing concentration camps. Nobody's accusing him of herding prisoners into gas chambers.

However, the lessons that we should ALL have learned from WWII is that simply "following orders" is NO LONGER AN EXCUSE. You can't simply claim military privilege, as if that somehow absolves you of ordering and carrying out illegal orders.

[muryan]

23. Unless you classify every order as illegal

you are talking about a small minority. There are many members of the armed services who are there because they have no other choice. Would you rather them just stand there and allow sectarian violence to continue? If I'm sent to Iraq without a choice then I'm going help as much as I can.

The nazi comparisons are not warranted. Despite the terrible things that have been done by this administration, they pale in comparison to the evil of nazi germany. And such a comparison just denigrates the incredibly terrible things that were done by hitler and his army.

[JuniperLea]

26. He's lying to Congress...

That's treason... that's a war criminal.

[Pavulon]

35. To kill 6 million people intentionally

we would need to begin indiscriminate strategic bombing of civilian targets. That would take a few days.

Or we could use nuclear weapons. That would take 30 minutes.

Until then you comparison is failed.

To this date 90,000 people have died after the invasion. A horrible number, but orders of magnitude less than the tens of millions (> 20mil civs) killed in WW2.

To approach that number we would need to kill everyone in Iraq, which we could do, but obviously will not.

That separates us from the Nazis.

The order is legal in the US and is funded by the congress TO THIS DAY. That is reality.

[Hugabear]

40. You're arguing about numbers

At what point are we allowed to start learning lessons from WWII? Do we simply say "well, we haven't killed as many people as Hitler, so we're okay"?

As for the order being "legal" in the US, weren't Germany's actions legal under Nazi law? We're talking about international law here, stuff like the Geneva Convention, which seems to have been forgotten in this war.

[JuniperLea]

25. Lying to Congress is treason...

Treason = War Criminal

[muryan]

27. Ive been watching all day

what lies in particular are you talking about? I understand hes trying to paint a rosy face on an bad situation, but he hasn't denied any of the facts from what i've seen.

[Buzz Clik]

30. Treason has a very specific definition. That is not it.

[JuniperLea]

34. Oh, really? Have you read the definitions?

Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: \ˈtrē-zən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray — more at traitor
Date: 13th century
1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Main Entry: treach·ery
Pronunciation: \-rē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural treach·er·ies
Etymology: Middle English trecherie, from Anglo-French, from trecher, tricher to deceive, from Vulgar Latin *triccare — more at trick
Date: 13th century
1 : violation of allegiance or of faith and confidence : treason
2 : an act of perfidy or treason

Seems to fit perfectly.

[Buzz Clik]

37. A dictionary is a not the rule of law. Read the Constitutional definition.

It is very, very specific.

[Buzz Clik]

31. Two thumbs up.