First, war crimes is defined as:

a crime (such as genocide or maltreatment of prisoners) committed during or in connection with war.

Second, yes, a strong case can be made that George Bush and Dick Cheney are ultimately responsible for the torture and murder of Iraqi prisoners, which resulted from policies that were approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, and Vice President Cheney himself.

International Law is relevant whether or not your opponent follows it. The attitude you just spewed upon us is exactly the problem with America right now.

You just argued that since terrorist don't "follow the rules" then we shouldn't either.

Terrorist are terrorist out of desperation. They don't HAVE armies so they have to do crazy shit like blow themselves up. America is the most powerful nation in history with thousands of nuclear weapons and yet you people shit your pants and throw away everything we've learned at the whim of a few crazy fucks!

We can "win" AND still follow the rules. Stop browning your drawers long enough to realize that lowering our standards like that is exactly what people who hate America want! Why do you think the rest of the world is so pissed at us??

PS- war of aggression + torture = war crimes

The Geneva Convention which, as you quite rightly stated refers to the treatment of non-combatants and prisoners of war, has absolutely nothing to do with it.

In order for a member of the UN to go to war, it has to be sanctioned by the UN security council and be in accordance with the UN's founding charters. There is also the Hague Convention, which does detail the opening of hostilities and the laws and customs of land-based war.

According to UN secretary general Kofi Annan, the war in Iraq WAS illegal:

In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish." He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Luckily for them, the US has a veto to stop the UN from referring them to the International Criminal Court which has, so far, received 240 articles of war crime against the UK and US.

They broke the hague convention in regards to cultural properties. They also broke the geneva convention in 2004 when they cut off water supplies to Tall Afar, Samarra and Fallujah. Regardless, they SERIOUSLY violated UN law. It doesn't matter whether you think the UN is broken and ineffective or not. That doesn't give you the right to violate their rules if you signed up to them.

So, you're agreeing that what the US did was illegal, but basically shrugging your shoulders and saying "but it's okay, because we had to do it, and they were breaking the law too. Oh, and these laws are silly, so we'll ignore them"?

Please tell me how the war in Iraq had ANYTHING to do with America?

42 minuets said Tony Blair.

Jesus titty-fucking christ you are ignorant.

Can't enforce sanctions?? for where? Do you even know what sanctions are? They are for countries not individuals. We had sanctions on Iraq for 10 years and yes, they were enforced. They were enforced on not just the government we disliked but the millions of innocent people who just happen to fucking live there. You'd probably know them as terrorist because you're too stupid to see the difference.

Yes. Terrorist are desperate! That's why they are terrorists you moron and not normal people with wives and kids and jobs.

Why were they desperate before 9/11???? Holy shit. You really are that ignorant. Their desperation made 9/11 happen you tool! I really don't have enough space to give you a full history lesson on the middle east nor do I have time to explain to you what terrorism is and why people do it. Those are things you should at least know before jumping in this argument. Maybe you should sit this one out.

Yes. They blow themselves up b/c they are desperate and do not have the capabilities of a normal army. Don't believe me? Hear them say it themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTvL3GVv8rQ

Diplomacy is for countries and rational people. If you could use diplomacy with a terrorist who had a bomb on his chest he WOULDN'T BE A TERRORIST!

"If the UN had been able to enforce the resolutions it imposed on Iraq before the war, then we wouldn't be in this mess."

Seriously man. How the hell can you believe this. THERE WERE NO WMD.

The sanctions WERE enforced ! Can you read?? There was no WMD found. NONE. 0. Nil. Zilch.

When you don't know anything about a subject you should just shut up man. You. Are. Wrong.

And that is why America was justified to go to war, right? Is that actually what you are saying? Saddam ignored the UN, so it was okay for America to also ignore the UN, and embark on a war that the UN has stated WAS illegal?

Yeah... weapons inspectors... looking for WMD's. So how many did they find after we invaded? Ah yes. None.

Food for oil program illistrates corruption in the UN and the willingness of a dictator prick to bargain with the food his people needed. A dick move, yes, but not a reason we invaded. We just wanted the oil on the market. The sanctions broke their economy and starved their people and we were using food through the UN to try and get our hands on their oil. When that didn't work (due to corruption in the UN) and Saddam decided to start trading his oil in Euros, we invaded.

Well, expletives just seem to jump out of my mouth when I run into someone who is seemingly devoid of facts in his life. We're not talking about kids in a sandbox here, we're talking in the context of wars and people(you know,like you and me) losing their lives en masse due to our country's decisions. It's important to know what it is true and what isn't and not just listen to one side of the broken political spectrum just because you classify yourself into it.

"Do you really think that American soldiers are killing Iraqis for sport?"

What? When did I say anything like that? But if you like I can show you proof that at least some are because they've been prosecuted for it. Although I'm not simple-minded enough to label the entire army based on the actions of a few. Soldiers do their mission, they kill, and they stay alive. That's what they do.

So what you're trying to say is you don't understand the consequence of invading and occupying a country. That makes you exactly like our current administration.

Before the war:

Saddam was a cruel dictator but his mass killing was of the kurds and it was in the 80's. The sanctions imposed on Iraq were responsible for ruining Iraqs economy and plunging the populace into poverty and many innocent people died. You don't choose to have a dictator running your country. Many argue the sanctions were to encourage the populace to revolt.Everyone seemed to have forgotten that after we kicked Iraqs ass out of Kuwait the US encouraged a revolt then as well and it happened. The problem was we never fully invaded Iraq in Desert Storm and we let the uprising we started get squashed by Saddam.

After the war:

A normal life?? Are you serious? Do you understand how bad we fucked their country?? Bush put a 23 years old with a bachelors in charge of Iraqs Economy. They disbanded the army. The infrastructure that WE were supposed to secure and hold over for transition fell apart in our hands due to incompetence. The civil war was going to happen regardless, but if the Iraqi army hadn't been disbanded it would never have gotten as bad as it did.

Iraqis cannot be quantified as one group. They are three separate ethnic groups forced into a single country when the British drew their country on the map. Iraq is a western illusion that we are forcing to work. Why do think they are now having to go to a three state plan?

You have to have a correct understanding of the people and the history of a place when you try to do something like we tried to do in Iraq or you just fuck it up like we did in Iraq.

The Nazis tried that defence at the Nuremberg trials, and the Allies (the US, UK and Russia) found them guilty. Leaders have to be responsible for their country's actions. And for a comparison of the seriousness of the crimes committed by the Axis during the second world war, check out the trials as well as the Japanese soldiers that were executed by the Allies for water boarding.

The fact that our governments haven't stuck by/up held the principles and laws that they set after WWII is an insult to those who fought during that war and has eroded the value of any moral victories gained.

Our government's attitude and behaviour in this debacle is disgusting. And I think it's a crying shame that, even though they should, they will never be tried.

To pronounce ANYONE guilty of war crimes would be beyond the powers of my reason or conscience.

I don't know enough facts (and suspect that I never will) to make a decision. And even if I did, I wouldn't presume to accept the mantle of someone capable of pronouncing the guilt or innocence of such a serious offense.

I have an entirely different view that I would like to put forward. I find it a strange statement of the human condition that we CAN get together to declare that there are acceptable "rules of war" (it's OK to kill one another as long as we follow some humane guidelines of conduct), but we often CANNOT get together to talk away our grievances without resorting to violence.

How about we agree that war itself is a crime?

I can agree with your view on war being a crime in and of itself. I have never agreed with warfare as an answer to anything and, indeed, it never has been. There are no winners when it comes to war.

The rules of engagement and the acceptable rules of war are designed to make killing legal within certain parameters. To me, war is nothing but genocide on a very grand scale. There is nothing humane about it. So, too, there is nothing humane or right in the way that George W. Bush and Tony Blair formed the coalition that would bring down Iraq and the leader we had been doing business with for decades! We needed a scapegoat for the events surrounding 9/11 and we had one in Saddam Hussein and the alleged "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Iraq had been thought to be squirreling away for years. It would seem as though intelligence had failed us and others around the world! Not even the U.N. could stop Bush from invading Iraq and he did so without their consent.

It pains me to say that détente and diplomacy seem to be a thing of the past. I only wish I could say the same for war. That wouldn't pain me in the least.

"the difference hear is our government is set up of checks and balances. their's more to it than just an executive branch."

It's no different at all. If you take charge of a country, you have to take responsibility. The order to go to war has to come from the person in charge.

"plus, don't really see how going into a country with every reason to believe that they have weapons is a war crime."

Maybe so, except that we've known for ages that they knew full well there weren't actually any weapons, yet continued to say there were. When you start telling people that they have weapons which are ready to fire in 42 minutes, that's pretty specific stuff. Someone, at some level of the government, must have made this up and known full well that it was a blatant lie. Once again, responsibility for the actions of your government must fall upon the leader.

Absolutely, and the government's (UK) refusal to have an enquiry as well as the new laws being (been) passed (US) to retrospectively remove the possibility of existing wrong doings being tried, seriously implies they know they are liable.

The checks and balances haven't worked or have been ignored, in which case the leader is responsible for fixing them, not ignoring or abusing them.

It doesn't matter how much more to it there is, executive branch or not, the system, and therefore its leader, is at fault.

Your analogy sucks, you're assuming the US/UK are the parents. It's more like: When a kid says to a bully that he doesn't have a cookie, but won't show him what's behind his back, even though the rest of the playground says there's nothing there either, the bully still socks the kid.

You've completely sidestepped the issue. It was illegal to invade. It is illegal to torture people.

i agree if you look at some camps set up and you hear the stories come from it its hard to not believe with video's and pictures

George W. Bush is guilty of wars crimes because a) the invasion of Iraq was illegal according to international law and the United Nations charter and b) because some American forces, with permission of the President, violated the Geneva Convention in terms how prisoners of war are supposed to be treated. Since he ordered those illegal actions, he is probably guilty and should be charged. Tony Blair is also allegedly criminally liable because, in his role as prime minister of Great Britain, he aided and abetted the illegal behavior of the United States. Both men should be put on trial, but we all know that will never happen; justice flows out of the barrel of the biggest machine gun and the largest supply of tactical nuclear weapons.

The fact that the Bush Administration has classified some prisoners of war as "illegal combatants" is also a violation of international law. In fact, it is clear that the United States, through the actions of its president, believe that its actions are ABOVE the review of international law and in fact, super-cede it.

American law, in practice, is above international law, and that's just one reason why America is seen by most of the world as the #1 purveyor of violence.

I write this as a loyal American, a former member of the Armed Forces of the United States, who wants our country to return to its ideals of justice and freedom, and away from George Bush's drift toward fascism.

Can't a guy fill up his logical fallacies quota for the day?

Cmon. How would people get to say cool things in latin if we didn't? Ok. Sry for getting heated guys. ;P

This is a subject that I could spend hours writing on.

Instead I will summarize quickly [don't fall over in a dead faint on this subject! LOL]

First let me state that "I am against war."

And I believe President Bush is an International Terrorist.

Small men have Napoleonic attitudes to make up for their inadequacies. Look at Hitler.

On Tony Blair...birds of a feather flock together.

'Nuff said!

Sharon

~The Baby Boomer Queen~

Um, so by that logic Bush could just pick up some Pilipino kid and rip out his toenails and no crime's been committed? I think that torturing when there is no war is illegal as well there Joe. Way to try and defend torture with a technicality though, gotta admire the spirit.

He's hated for, amongst other things, commiting war crimes.

Both Bush and Blair are really no more than pawns. Bush is a puppet for elitist corporate handlers. Blair was bought and paid for. Their crimes more resemble treason than anything else. Cheney and PNAC are the real criminals.

There was a op-ed in Pravda recently (written by a fellow American) calling for all of their heads, actually recommending the death penalty as a deterent to future coups. Be that the case I feel the pair should given their lives... and a cell on Guantanamo Bay.

Your arguement that torturing people is a-okay since the war on terror isn't a war on a specific nation defeats the spirit of the law. Torture is illegal because it's morally wrong and it doesn't work, not because the enemy combatants are backed by some nation. Torture is the most un-American thing since slavery and everyone should be ashamed and embarassed by it including hardcore Republicans. That I can go to these boards and see those who have reaped the benefits of our great nation defend this action is deplorable. That's all I can say on that.

As for what we should have done about 911. How about catching Osama Bin Laden? "What should we have done?" give me a break. This administration used everyone's high emotions after that tragedy to get us into a bogus war that Bush wanted before he even got in office. All of the evidence said there was no reason to go to Iraq, no WMD's, no connection to terror. They ignored the evidence and lied to the American people.

"If it was a war for oil why are we paying so much?" You ask. Do you have any idea how much oil companies have made? How much Blackwater, and Halliburton have made? You think because you specifically pay more for gas that therefore the reasons for going there were altruistic. You're wrong, this administration doesn't care about you. Look at who gave money to the Bush campaign, and look at who's giving money to the McCain campaign.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of the UN, which is where it really matters.

No it's not. Just because one person comes out and says "yep, we won" doesn't mean a war is over.

UN Sec General stated in an interview that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal. The UN are the judiciary on matters such as this.

two words, white phosphorous.

both guilty.

tony:because he was an idiot at running the country.

george w bush:well, just look at his name

Saddam Hussain murdered 500,000 innocent Iraqi's and was prosecuted. Blair and Bush were the reason for the death of 600,000 innocent Iraqi's yet nothing, not even proper blame is put on them.

Not at all. If both combatants are following the usual rules of war (what an oxymoron), then a combatant could be charged with war crimes if he breaks those rules. The combatant I assume you're referring to are terrorist and they don't follow the usual rules of war. In other words, you can't hold one combatant to one set of rules and the other combatant to a different, more lax, set of rules.

I am against anything and everything that gives the terrorist the upper hand in killing innocent civilians. As far as I'm concerned they are suicide bombers and we are just helping them attain their suicide goal.... just a little slower than what they had in mind. ;)

The war ended when President Bush declared, "Mission accomplished!" on board the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003. The goal of the war was to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Any enemy combatants that may have gotten hurt after the end of the war should not be protected under the Geneva convention.

FYI: The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland, that set the standards for international law for humanitarian concerns.

They chiefly concern the treatment of non-combatants and prisoners of war.

The people you are referring to are neither "non-combatants" nor are they "prisoners of war." Therefore, no war crimes were committed.

This sounds like quite a loophole, but it is "technically" true, unfortunately.

George Bush and Tony Blair and John Howard are just head position's. they are not the main people responsible for this they are just there to look pretty and to take of the4 blame and crap from everyone else. that is why they are elected. the people behind the desks and in the meetings are too blame not them three even though they did have the last say. They cant be held responsible for war crimes. even though we want them to be

What part of the Hague Convention did the U.S. violate?

If the UN had been able to enforce the resolutions it imposed on Iraq before the war, then we wouldn't be in this mess. The oil for food program was corrupt. Corruption is illegal. The UN is broken and ineffective. Why put America's interest in the hands of the UN? America did what it had to do.

International law is irrelevant when it proves itself irrelevant. If international law can't even enforce a few little sanctions against a little country, then it is irrelevant. If a cop can't keep your property and family safe from your neighbors, are you going to keep on relying on the cop or are you going to take matters into your own hands?

Terrorist are desperate? What are you talking about? Why were they desperate before 9/11? They should be desperate now that they know we ain't taking their crap anymore.

They don't have armies so they have to blow themselves up? What? What about diplomacy? This is like saying that a younger sibling's only recourse against his older sibling is to fight dirty.

I liked the little math equation though.

That's what I like about you. You are so articulate.... and your command of the English language is awesome!

Who said anything about WMDs? Saddam was supposed to let the inspectors in. He didn't. The Food for Oil program was supposed to be food for oil, it wasn't.

Do you really think that American soldiers are killing Iraqis for sport? I believe that they're killing themselves. Before the war, Saddam was killing them. And the sad part is that after the war, they had a shot at having a "normal" life where they didn't have to live in fear of being killed. They blew it (no pun intended).

the difference hear is our government is set up of checks and balances. their's more to it than just an executive branch.

plus, don't really see how going into a country with every reason to believe that they have weapons is a war crime. like when a kid says he didn't take the cookie, but won't show you what's behind his back... do you really believe him?

OK, you don't need to start Ad-Hominem type attacks on people. While I agree with most of what you're saying, attacking someone's character / intelligence, etc is not the best way to get a point across.

I agree that American's need to be better educated on why we went to Iraq, the history of Iraq before we were there, how it is now, etc and the litany of errors that has led us to where we are. I think that's why I like CD so much is it gives us all an outlet to let out our opinions. I just think we need to keep it a bit more civil than name calling.... (gets off soap box)

Heck no and iwil ltel lyou why. It it ebcause of the fact that we ahte him so it is another thing we pin on him? Would we do do same if it ws Lincolin? Probaby not.

In your opnion yes but if we just let things be Al Quaida would be all over us. They choose to come her and kill us so we should just let them and not do a thing?

If GWB and Tony Blair were considered guilty of war crimes they would be tried in the court of political correctness gone mad. How can it be considered a war when our true enemy is not a country, does not have an organized army or follows "rules of engagemenet" or The Geneva Convention?

The United States and it's allies have being tried and convicted by the court of world-wide public opinion, with the aid of an over zealous, anti-Amrican and liberally-biased media.

Can somebody please tell me, how should the United States government have reacted when over 3,000 innocent people were slaughtered on Sept 11, 1991? Should we have rolled over and played dead like we did about the First attack on the WTC, Tanzanian Embassy bombing, US.S Cole attack? It was the lack of a responce to these events, I believe, that emboldened our enemy to follow through with the attacks of Sept 11th. Our political backing of Israel warrants the justification of a rogue terrorist group to kill innocent civilians?

Our government's intelligence community compiled data, whether later considered true or false, submitted it to the Executive office, Congress and etc. Based on that, the president and Congress voted to proceed with an attack against Afghanistan, Iraq and any other nation harboring terrorists.

This was with news media outlets reporting 24/7 around the clock and world, driven by political agendas and ratings. We had imbedded reporters that accompanied our military, compromising our strategies and positions, but never-the-less getting the "almighty story" out to the people. Then the Monday night quarterbacks and "experts" could second guess every move, decision and event after it happened. The warped and twisted "Al-Jazeera" media channel could display beheadings of Americans, show the charred remains of American contractors hanging in Iraq and every injury of every innocent civilian over there, regardless of how or by whom they were injured. Forget the accuracy of the report, just report it, get it out there for the public court and let them decide. This has been a war for the hearts and minds of the world, with an unfair burden on the United States Government and military to prove everything beyond a shadow of a doubt. We were considered guilty before our troops hit the ground I think. We are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. But I'd rather error on the side of damned if you do, and stop another attack of epic proportions like 9/11 than win the political correct war.

And, if indeed if it was a war for oil, how come we are paying record highs for a barrel of oil? This whole situation smells of hyprocrisy and hatred. Should we have paused our military on the beaches of Normandy to hurry up and take an opinion poll to gauge the direction of public sentiment? Are we doing the correct thing here? Is that how a nation wins a war? I think not.

The Judiciary has always been the weapon that could be judiciously utilized to correct every wrong doings. The Judiciary has helped resolve a lot of mysterious issues that the day-to-day beliefs could not comprehend or fathom.

In law, an accused stays innocent until proven guilty, that should be the status quo and jungle justice should not be allowed to prevail.

The Un is jsut a joke. how many was ahve them stpoed,none how often do they prevent them,once in a blue moon. They don't have the might to even force what they tell people to do.