If Bush Loses ???

[Hugger]

Do you think he could be charged for war crimes? His reasons for invading seem to have faded. If Saddam doesn't make it tp trial what will he stand on? Not my assumption, just a recent conversation I thought I'd toss out there?
H

[iam0234]

In the American legal system, Sadam has a case against Bush for a) Libel, b) forceful entry without a warrant, c) wilful destruction of private property, d) foul play causing deaths and bodily injuries, and e) causing nuisance in public - something like that. LOL.

[xarir]

The concept of a war crime is that an individual can be held accountable for the actions of a state or those of soldiers of a state. The standard definition of "war crime" comes from article 147 of the fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.genevaconventions.org/). According to this article, a war crime is the:

wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

In the case of Afghanistan, the US will argue that Taliban soldiers were "illegal combatants" and thus could not be considered protected persons under the law. This is of course a load of crap, but the term "illegal combatants" was chosen for the specific reason of getting around the Geneva Conventions and subsequent treatment of prisoners. (Deportation to Guantanamo, lack of legal representation, holding for undue length of time without pressing specific charges ...)

In the case of Iraq, one must investigate whether any of the following occured:

- Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
- Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
- Seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science
- Plunder of public or private property
- Murder
- Extermination
- Enslavement
- Deportation
- Imprisonment
- Torture
- Rape
- Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds

For the first 4 points I think it's fair to say that the US military took reasonable precautions to ensure compliance. Although there were (and still are) firefights, bombardment etc, it can be reasonably argued that the use of force is militarily justified in these cases. (Note that I say militarily and not necessarily morally.) As for the remaining points, one could easily focus on Imprisonment and on Torture. The well documented cases (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact) of prisoner abuse in the now infamous Abu Ghraib prison feed straight into this.

So at first glance, it seems that GWB could be brought up on war crime charges, assuming someone out there has the balls to take the case before the World Court (which the US doesn't recogninze in any case).

[xarir]

Originally posted by DonQuixote

Who is more culpable? Those that issue the orders
or those that pull the trigger!!

Those who issue the orders are most culpable. A commander is responsible for the conduct of the troops below him. Although an individual soldier is responsible for his own actions, the ultimate legal responsibility lies with the commander. So while it holds that a troop could be held liable for his actions, his C.O. will bear the heavier burden.

[xarir]

You're right - from a moral perspective things can look different.

[ocean976124]

Depends on which war crime you wish to try him for. The lack of WMD alone are not enough to try Bush for war crimes. Afterall, Saddam had violate many of the UN resolutions against him and even was involved in scaming money from the oil for food program.
Secondly, short of genocide, war crimes are a joke and the international community knows it.

[danmand]

Dream on: Being tried for war crimes is reserved for the government of countries that are defeated militarily. No US president would allow a previous administration to be tried for war crimes.

[Paul Waters]

Didn't the Secretary-General of the UN assert that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law?

Following a Kerry win and a congressional investigation into the fuckup in Iraq, I could see Bush being put on trial.

[ocean976124]

Originally posted by Paul Waters
Didn't the Secretary-General of the UN assert that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law?

Following a Kerry win and a congressional investigation into the fuckup in Iraq, I could see Bush being put on trial. Its still not a war crime that anyone would bother to prosecute for. The UN does nothing about the Sudan, but Bush toppling a dictator is just too much?

[JJicq]

No FUCKING WAY Bush will be charged with war crimes...

He may lose but that is a completely seperate issue.

[phogNphriction]

Originally posted by
Bogus argument.

It's the individual that performs the act.
Are we talking legal or are we talking moral?

I'm an attorney. Don't give me your legal arguments.
It's individual responsibility, or am I wrong?
It's a moral and ethical argument, not a legal argument.


There were many war crimes that occured in VietNam (look up
'Tiger force' for example); the fact there were very few
prosecutions/ instances of discipline was a consequence of the
interests and sympathies of those who had the power to make
such decisons- most war crimes involved both acts of commission
and acts of ommission by various parties to the events.

Legally, responsibility is described by the chain of command, but
there is a caveat: it is recognized that the chain of command can
err in the lawfulness of the orders it decides to disseminate;
In this case, the individual is held to a 'fundamental'
standard and is expected to recognize when a duly recieved order
is in fact 'unlawful'...

The moral implications of these circumstances do not seem as clear.
As far as the 'individual' performing the act, the following must be
pondered: Is the person acting on the basis of 'free will';
Is the person's free will 'individual', or are they in fact internally
conflicted, having inconsistent, even mutually exclusive, ideas,
desires, or impulses? The question of responsibility, then, relates
to the question of agency? Is the person acting as an agent? Reacting?

The soldier's experience is a very good example of shades-of-grey;
I would assume you could find examples where the individual has almost
total conscious control over the causes-to-effects relationship of
events and is the primary agent and architect of outcomes. I assume
there are also readily available examples of soldiers who cannot be
held responsible for acts they physically carried out where their
agency is much diminished- sometimes this is incidental (fatigue, altered
mental state, trauma),
sometimes it is intentionally orchestrated (training, control of access
to information, misinformation).

[blitz]

...look for Canada to support the perceived "war on terror" with $$ and people, even if that includes Iraq.

I still like Kerry over the hex from Tex but we Canadians and our government will have to deliver up our support somehow.

Remember what you wish for...

and be prepared to back it up.

Peace.

[assoholic]

..Bush has just done what Reagan did, but on a bigger scale, Grenada was just a warm up.

[WoodPeckr]

Bush's Crimes
Impeach the president? Yes. A well-documented case ties him to Abu Ghraib.

President Bush is coming to town Thursday night to debate John Kerry and try to earn your vote. But the question emerging now is not whether he should be elected but if he should be impeached for war crimes.

Remember when the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal broke with all those detestable pictures and the administration repeated that it was the fault of a "few bad apples"? Well, they were right. Thankfully, the bad apples have been identified: John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and President Bush.

Bush decided to ignore the federal War Crimes Act, which is punishable by death. But impeachment will do. It takes a very high crime to justify removing the president, especially during time of war -- even an unpopular and disastrous war like the one in Iraq. But Bush, unfortunately, has risen to that height.

more in the following link:

http://www.newtimesbpb.com/issues/2004-09-30/news/norman.html

Welcome to Bush's AmeriKKKa!!!

[blitz]

Canadians...

Prepare to back up our support for Kerry in some way.

It may be time for some serious Blue Helmets.

Consider.

Peace.

[mottel]

I Like Bush, and I hope he will be the next president of the USA

[Asterix]

Originally posted by mottel
I Like Bush, and I hope he will be the next president of the USA

Too bad he doesn't really qualify as the current one.

[seth gecko]

If Bush loses, he'll become the President of the USA, like he did last election when he lost to Gore.

[WoodPeckr]

Originally posted by seth gecko
If Bush loses, he'll become the President of the USA, like he did last election when he lost to Gore.

It's looks like someone has 'leaked' Rove's game plan for 2004 out.

[WoodPeckr]

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

This shows that Gore did indeed win in 2000 before the GOP Supreme Court came in and staged a 'political coup' and stole the election for Dubya in a 5 to 4 vote, thereby NULLIFYING the vote of the people in the USA and NULLIFYING the 2000 election.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by WoodPeckr
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

This shows that Gore did indeed win in 2000 before the GOP Supreme Court came in and staged a 'political coup' and stole the election for Dubya in a 5 to 4 vote, thereby NULLIFYING the vote of the people in the USA and NULLIFYING the 2000 election.


No one ever disputed that Al Gore won the popular vote. Which indeed he did.
However in the USA the president is not elected by popular vote. He is elected by the electoral college. Look it up.
Your above statement falls into the same category as the " draft conspiracy"
It is not factual and is only repeated to spread lies and to missinform the voters.

BTW, according to your quoted chart, W did win FL.

While I don't always agree with the power of trial laywers in the USA, they are sometimes able to uncover and/or fight in justice.
If there would be serious grounds for voter fraud in Florida 2000 I can assure you that the Cochrans of the world would have found a way to profit from it.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by DonQuixote
There you go again!!!!

There are trial lawyers for the plaintiff, and
there are trial lawyers for the defendant.

Operative concept: both sides are represented by trial lawyers.

Maybe lawyers should be excluded and ministers and social workers
should represent the parties.

Then you can bitch and moan about their power.

Don

Hey calm down Don, you sound like a laywer.
My point was that if there was any alleged irregularities, some laywer would have taken up the issue already.

On Laywers:
If you are on, than it would explain your love affair with the D's.
The Trial Laywer Assn. is one of the top ten campaign contributors. See below.
Don't worry I still respect you, even if you are a laywer. LOL

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D000000065

[langeweile]

Originally posted by DonQuixote
True, but the Wall Street law firms are the biggest contributors
to the Bush campaign.

I keep stating over and over again I'm not a D.
I'm an anarchist. Please don't slander my good name
and reputation again or I'll have to lance your bubble.

I'm against Bush because Iraq is an unjust war.
My opinion is based on my reading and understanding of
the great philosophers of Western culture from Augustine of
Hippo to the present.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq is an unjust and immoral act.

IMHO. Don
Viewing life with rose colored glasses looking through
a sniper's scope.

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.asp?cycle=2004

When you say Wallstreet Laywers are you referring to brokerage houses?
Looks like they are the highest contributors to the R's.

Sorry for calling you a D. I can see how this coud offend you..LOL

[WoodPeckr]

Originally posted by langeweile


BTW, according to your quoted chart, W did win FL.



The reason Bush 'won' Florida was because Katherine Harris, remember her, illegally took over 46,000 DEM voters off the voter poll lists to keep them from voting. This RIGGED the election and enabled Bush to STEAL the 2000 election.

The Florida voters are again up in arms! It seems that Katherine Harris (that Ilsa the She-Wolfe of the GOP Gestapo figure, from election 2000 notoriety) is back and up to her old dirty 'rig the vote' tricks AGAIN. Law suits have been filed against her attempts to continue, as expected, to keep Democracts in Florida from voting by hook & by crook. It looks like after 4 years since the last election Jeb Bush's Florida is still as screwed up as ever.....not that this is any surprise. :D

[langeweile]

WoodPeckr,

In a court of law we are all innocent until proven guilty.

While your comments sound good on a Democratic pep rally, where is the proof?
Who got convicted of fraud?
Going back to my previous point..if there would have been just the slightest suspicion of actual wrong doing. Some laywer would have taken the opportunity to make a name for himself.

Well maybe it was just all part of a BIG conspiracy.....yeah right.

[WoodPeckr]

Originally posted by langeweile
WoodPeckr,

In a court of law we are all innocent until proven guilty.

While your comments sound good on a Democratic pep rally, where is the proof?
Who got convicted of fraud?
Going back to my previous point..if there would have been just the slightest suspicion of actual wrong doing. Some laywer would have taken the opportunity to make a name for himself.

Well maybe it was just all part of a BIG conspiracy.....yeah right.

Law suits have been filed against Florida and frau Katharine Harris for denial of voter registration for minor flaws in filling out voter registration forms. It seems that Harris is back to her old tricks of finding ways to keep people from voting if it looks like they will vote for someone other than Dubya.

NPR radio did a story on this recently filed lawsuit, just yesterday.

[langeweile]

Just because somebody files a lawsuit against you, doesn't make you automatically guilty.
Right...
Are you talking about 2000 or 2004?

[langeweile]

Originally posted by DonQuixote
Next time you get into legal problems I suggest
you seek the assistance of a social worker.
I imagine it would be a matter of conscience for you.
You certainly wouldn't want your good name by
being associated with an attorney.

Don

PS: Thom Jefferson said the law is the new religion of America.
That makes me a high priest of justice. Damn, that's real
power.

Where do you get the notion that I don't like laywers??Is your paranoia playing tricks on you?

One of the great things about our legal system is, that even a small guy can take on a large corporation without having to go bancrupt.
The worse thing about our legal system is...see above.

The third branch of goverment should not be strapped of his powers. I wish there would be a way to curb those frivolous lawsuits. I have been on the receiving end of such a suit.
Lucky for me, the judge saw the handwritng on the wall, and ruled in my favour.
My problem with this is ,all the time and money that had been spend for an asshole with no case.

People like you and me are paying for those who want to make a quick buck through the legal system. Usually in form of higher insurance premiums etc...like any business..higher operating costs mean higher prices, while some of them can be absorbed with efficencies some of them are being passed on to the consumer.

[langeweile]

What is your area of expertise?

[WoodPeckr]

Originally posted by langeweile
Just because somebody files a lawsuit against you, doesn't make you automatically guilty.
Right...
Are you talking about 2000 or 2004?

2004, heard the story on NPR radio yesterday.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by WoodPeckr
2004, heard the story on NPR radio yesterday.

Just because somebody files a lawsuit against you, doesn't make you automatically guilty.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by DonQuixote
Humm!! It depends on what services are requested.
I'm considering posting a list of services similar to SPs.
Normal and extraordinary.
Being a member of the second oldest profession it seems at
this point to be a reasonable approach.

Except more of a male SP.

Not only can I f*** you while you're alive I can f*** your estate
after you're dead - kinda like necrophelia.

Don't drop your wallet with me behind you.

Maybe I should start a new thread asking for help from
the board. This could really get spicy.

I may even get censured by the moderators and have to practice
my appellate skills.

Don

You are such a slut...

[langeweile]

Ok..courtesan it is, but is it worth it?

[Cinema Face]

Maybe Clinton should be charged with war crimes for what he did in Bosnia. What exactly was that war about again? Ethnic cleansing turned out to be a hoax.

[WoodPeckr]

Originally posted by Cinema Face
Maybe Clinton should be charged with war crimes for what he did in Bosnia. What exactly was that war about again? Ethnic cleansing turned out to be a hoax.

This kind of thinking reminds me of the right-wingers in present day Germany who say Hitler never killed 6 million Jews, or those that deny the "Killing-Fields" of Cambodia ever existed.......

Here's a story on what's going on in Serbia now:

Bosnian Serbs admit scale of Srebrenica massacre for first time

2 hours, 28 minutes ago
Top Stories - AFP

BANJA LUKA, Bosnia-Hercegovina (AFP) - Bosnian Serb authorities admitted for the first time that Serb forces slaughtered more than 7,000 Muslims in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, Europe's worst atrocity since World War II.

"I am confirming that the number (of victims) is higher than 7,000. I cannot reveal the exact figures. It is up to the government to do it," an official from a special investigative commission told AFP Thursday on condition of anonymity.

In June the Bosnian Serb government admitted for the first time that Serb forces had committed the massacre and tried to cover up the crime, but it avoided giving a definite figure on the number of victims.

The commission included the figure of more than 7,000 victims -- a number which conforms to most independent assessments -- in a report it presented to the Bosnian Serb government on Thursday.

"I think that the commission made the most objective and the most correct list of those killed in Srebrenica," commission member Djordje Stojakovic told AFP, without revealing the figures.

"We had more than 30 sources of information but the list is not final. I'm not sure that there will be a final list ever."

Srebrenica is the first episode in the bloody break-up of former Yugoslavia that the UN war crimes tribunal at The Hague (news - web sites) has ruled constituted genocide.

Bosnian Serb forces overran the enclave, which was supposed to be under UN protection, in July 1995.

Women and children were allowed to flee the enclave in eastern Bosnia, but Muslim men and boys were rounded up and the International Committee of the Red Cross estimates that more than 7,000 of them were subsequently killed.

In 2002, the Bosnian Serb government issued a report which minimized the number of victims, triggering outrage among survivors and the international community.

Most Bosnian Serbs deny that the massacre took place and continue to regard their political leader during the country's 1992-95 war, Radovan Karadzic, and his military commander, Ratko Mladic, as heroes.

Both men have been indicted by the UN tribunal at The Hague for war crimes and genocide for their alleged roles in the Srebrenica massacre, but remain at large somewhere in the former Yugoslavia.

The genocide is also the basis of key charges laid against former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic (news - web sites), who has been on trial at The Hague for more than two years.

Massacre survivors said it was about time the Serbs admitted the scale of the slaughter, but warned that more information was needed on the whereabouts of the culprits and the locations of hidden mass graves.

"Considering the scale of the crime, it is a success that after nine years the number of victims is being confirmed," the head of the Srebrenica mothers association, Munira Subasic, told AFP.

"But we also want to find out from the report who the perpetrators are. Who were those who took away our kids? We would also like to know where they were buried."

So far more than 6,000 bodies have been exhumed from mass graves near the town. Some 1,327, identified by DNA anlaysis, have been buried at a Srebrenica memorial site but another 5,000 remains are yet to be identified.



Post-war Bosnia consists of two semi-independent entities -- the Serb-run Republika Srpska, which includes Srebrenica, and the Muslim-Croat Federation.

Bosnia's war claimed some 200,000 lives and more than two million people, over half the country's population, were forced to flee their homes.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041014/ts_afp/warcrimes_bosnia_srebrenica

[langeweile]

WoodPeckr

Thanks for the article.
The Yugoslavia conflict was how long ago? This article was published when?
Point,
It took about 8 or 9 years for this to come out, but we are getting impatient after nearly two in Iraq?
HMMMM

[WoodPeckr]

langeweile

The article was put on Yahoo News today.

Unfortunately there is no end in sight for either of those places plus dozens of other places around the world.

Bush seems to cast himself as 'Policeman of the World', vis-a-vis, his War on Terror which has no end in sight. If this course continues on THERE IS NO DOUBT THE MILITARY DRAFT WILL BE RE-INSTITUTED IN THE USA.

[langeweile]

Yugoslavia was started by Clinton.

The war on terror will never end no matter what. Terror as a means of change is as old as mankind.

There will be no military draft. Bush doesn't have the power to do it.
There is a good chance that the R's will loose the senate and possibly the congress. (Which in my opinion is a bigger deal than loosing the presidency)
Once the senate or the house is held by the D's a draft would not be possible unless the D's agree.
What are the chances of that??

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by DonQuixote
Sorry to say if Bush were charged with war crimes
so too would I for following orders in 'Nam.
Who is more culpable? Those that issue the orders
or those that pull the trigger!!

Doesn't matter does it, both are illegal and would be prosecuted. Have you turned yourself in yet?

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by WoodPeckr
THERE IS NO DOUBT THE MILITARY DRAFT WILL BE RE-INSTITUTED IN THE USA.

Never - and I mean never happen.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by bbking
As much as I hate to agree with that a----- the fact remains that a draft is impossible to be functional in todays military. However, MANDATORY SERVICE similar to Israel, is a very real possibility especially if Bush is re-elected (not going to happen OTB:p) - he would be able to say he didn't go back on his promise about the draft.


bbk

Neither is going to happen, we are wasting a 100k troops protecting f*cking Europe for heavens sake.

OTB

[WoodPeckr]

Originally posted by bbking
According to Bush it's going to take 6 years to move those troops so........

bbk

Bingo! That's my point the Draft will have to come back. Keeping existing troops in place for the next 6 years is just that 'backdoor draft,' which just won't fly.

This is Dubya's 'War On Terror' troop, and you are in it for the DURATION!

MANDATORY SERVICE is a nice try but merely a play on words ......but it is still the DRAFT, no ifs, ands or buts, A DRAFT.

Bush if re-elected, perish the thought, will claim National Security as he brings back the DRAFT.

Kerry if he wins is just stuck with Dubya's mess and may be forced to claim the same in bringing back the DRAFT. If Kerry were to just pull out the troops the GOP would SQUEAL LIKE STUCK PIGS SO LOUDLY it would be heard all the way to China...

.......In the meantime Halliburton et al., you know those who are really calling the shots will continue to rake in the dough! After all the Military-Industrial Complex comes first.....they will have a very merry Xmas, or two, or three,..........

[langeweile]

haliburton, haliburton, haliburton, haliburton.....if you keep repeating it, maybe one day people believe it.

http://www.capitaleye.org/iraqchart.3.12.03.asp

According to the above link, the D's are just pissed, because they didn't get a larger chunk of the contribution from Haliburton.

Well they got enough from the other major contractors.

[langeweile]

If you read the chart carefully thay did get 5%.

[langeweile]

if you read further some other contractors have their own favorites. It is called politics.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by bbking
But Mandatory Draft is a way to say I didn't lie - toss in the ability to do community service instead and it looks different than a draft. BTW what they will do is that you have to have some skill and Congressman's recommendation for community service - once again the elite will have a way out of the draft - I mean mandatory service.



bbk

damn I'm getting way to cynical


Never Never Never going to happen, the psychology of Vietnam would never allow it again. There are so many advantages to a professional military that rounding up a few thousand more kids with a draft would be a net negative. In fact I'd say that the fact that you belive it shows how little about the US you really know (regardless of if you live here or not)

I stand by my assertion that the US will move to a much more isolationist stance post Iraq, pulling the troops home and waiting for the next idiot to attack.

OTB

[langeweile]

Originally posted by bbking
Isolationist?? in this day and age - I doubt that very much. US Companies have way to many ties to the rest of the planet for the US to do that.


bbk

Agreed.
The assets of corporations in an ever expanding global market, will have a great influence on the politics of any country.

[WoodPeckr]

Originally posted by onthebottom
..... There are so many advantages to a professional military that rounding up a few thousand more kids with a draft would be a net negative......OTB

Perhaps "Mutiny in time or War" is one of these "Advantages." It will be very interesting to see how the professional military handles this "Mutiny Incident" with the elections just around the corner.

Army Reserve Unit Reportedly Balked at Risky Mission in Iraq

Sat Oct 16, 7:55 AM ET
Top Stories - Los Angeles Times

By Mark Mazzetti and Ellen Barry Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army has launched an investigation into reports that members of an Army Reserve unit in Iraq refused to carry out a convoy supply mission this week, military officials said Friday.

The incident came to light when relatives of the soldiers under investigation declared that the troops disobeyed orders to drive in the convoy because they considered it a "suicide mission."

The troops believed that the poor condition of their fuel trucks and the lack of armored vehicles to escort them meant that the mission would be too dangerous, the family members said. The soldiers decided to express their concerns to commanders on base.

The reservists are part of a fuel platoon from the 343rd Quartermaster Company, a South Carolina-based unit charged with delivering food, fuel, water and supplies to frontline troops throughout Iraq.

Since the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, supply convoys have been among the most dangerous missions in Iraq, with insurgents attacking with rockets, small-arms fire and roadside bombs.

A U.S. military statement issued from Baghdad said 19 members of the fuel platoon failed to appear at a scheduled formation at 7 a.m. Wednesday in Tallil, a U.S. military base in Iraq. The formation was called to prepare for a fuel convoy mission to Taji, a town north of Baghdad.

The statement did not provide details about why the troops refused the mission.

The link:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_UNIT_INVESTIGATION?SITE=MSJAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[WoodPeckr]

It will be interesting how this plays out. The soldiers main claims for 'refusal of orders' are saying the fuel was contaminated and their vehicles lacked proper armor. Several involved soldiers have told family members they have been reduced in rank already as punishment. Brig. Gen. Chambers the CO, is looking into what further actions may be taken against this supply platoon.