Should Bush be prosecuted for War crimes ?

Question

Should Bush be prosecuted for War crimes ?

Answer 1

oh yeah

Answer 2

Only the losers get prosecuted. Sad but true.

Torture or inhumane treatment = WAR CRIME

Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial = WAR CRIME

Bush did both. We all know it.

Answer 3

No he hasn't done anything illegal. The president doesn't have to have immediate approval from congress to go to war and they ended up giving approval anyway. He has behaved the same as other presidents in time of war and has managed to have an extremely low death toll compared to other American wars. The only reason Bush gets a bad rap is because the media is mostly liberal. If your upset about America's problems don't forget that congress is controlled by Democrats and congress is the key player in all the issues(Economy, Health care, College cost, Funding for the war, approval of the war).

Answer 4

he'd be the first. you do realize we haven't declared war since WWII.

so if they arrested him they would have to arrest the other presidents that went to war without approval from congress.

not to mention almost all politicians go against the Constitution at some point so we'd probably have to arrest them too.

yes he should be, not no he wont be.

Answer 5

NEIN

HE SHOUDL FACE THE TRIAL

UND BE EXPOSED TO HIS SINS

Answer 6

Some people definitely think so.  I suspect a very interesting case can be made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4...

Answer 7

Yes

Saddam was a cruel dictator

and the world is probably better off

without him

but

He didn't do the 9/11 attacks

No WMD's

Why did we attack Iraq?

Where is Osama bin Laden?

Answer 8

yes...and hanged!

Answer 9

Exactly what "war crimes" do you think Bush committed?  Stopping a genocide? Deposing a brutal dictator? Imposing democracy?  Oh, the horror!

The UN is a bunch of useless tools. They've done such a bang-up job in the Congo and Somalia.  They wagged their fingers and wrote strongly worded letters to Saddam for 12 years.  I guess one more "pretty please" from the feckless UN, and he would have disarmed and stopped gassing the Kurds.

Answer 10

Absolutely.

So should Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Karl Rove, Condi Rice, Gonzales, and John Yoo (this guy is evil - he wrote the legal opinion that made torture acceptable).

Answer 11

Since the UN declared the invasion of Iraq illegal, I think there would be justification to say he is guilty of what the UN Charter calls crimes against peace.

"...planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing."

The torture issue is an entirely different and much more complex story.

Answer 12

Should you be prosecuted for being stupid?

Answer 13

No. It would be a huge mistake for our security and standing in the world. We need to push him aside in history and move forward.

Answer 14

YES!

Bush and Cheney ordered a war of aggression against Iraq which constitutes a crime against peace (the n**i leaders were prosecuted for this). It violates the UN Charter.

They ordered bombing of civilian areas like Baghdad resulting in the death of hundreds of civilians which violates the Geneva Convention.

We used to be considered the honorable ones on the world stage. Bush and Cheney have made us targets for revenge by committing these crimes.

Answer 15

No. Condi Rice. Petraeus. Should be prosecuted for War crimes

Answer 16

Not only shouldn't he be, he cannot be. Bush has not committed any war crimes much as you liberals think to the contrary.  

Answer 17

Well, I choose to let history define the legacy of Bush.

I prefer to move forward with hope,prosperity and peace. People like Biden want to push the subject and such a decision would be more of the same. I'm tired of the gloom and doom of some people in this country. I ask, is anyone serious about moving forward for the sake of genuine change?

Answer 18

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who served as the chief prosecutor of the major n**i 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.

Answer 19

If he had committed any, yes, but since he hasn't not an issue is it?

Answer 20

eurofighters could land on the ranch at night and put him in a steel cage with electric bars , ya  / i wonder if he lasts as many days in THE HAGUE as milosevic ...... it would be a blast just to see it dude !