Should George W Bush be tried for war crimes, and if so, who would arrest him?

Comments

• Gunatanamo is in breach of the eneva convention-that is a war crime.

  • Report
  

  by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on July 5th, 2007

• Al-Qaeda terrorists do not meet the criteria to be protected under the Geneva Convention. They are not members of our adversary's state armed forces and they are not part of an identifiable militia group that abides by the laws of war. The treatment they receive in our custody, however bad, is far better than the treatment our troops receive. At least we leave their heads on! Beating a little info out of them is perfectly acceptable in my opinion if it helps stop another 9/11.

  • Report
  

  by teal on July 5th, 2007

• they are not all al-qaeda in guantanamo. They have received no classification. Under the terms of the Geneva convention, unclassified detainees must be treted as POWs until they have been classified

  • Report
  

  by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on July 5th, 2007

• The one's who are receiving harsher treatment are probably the ones we've determined to be members of Al-Qaeda and we need to get information out of them. Regardless, our country and other countries are under attack by these terrorists and I believe extreme measures are necessary to find and destroy them.
  
  I don't understand why so many American's are on the side of these known and potential terrorists. I seriously doubt that our military or our president enjoys torturing people. We just don't want our way of life to be harmed and the government especially doesn't want it's citizens slaughtered by the thousands.

  • Report
  

  by teal on July 5th, 2007

• much better to slaughter hundreds of thousands of non-american civilians eh?

  • Report
  

  by Emma is sick of ignorant bullies on July 5th, 2007

• We're not slaughtering hundreds of thousands of non-american's, they're slaughtering themselves! Those idiots are blowing themselves, innocent civilians and our troops up every day over there. We are very careful with our attacks and we use sophisticated weapons to reduce collateral damage. However, I really don't even think we should be there any more. It doesn't seem like we're doing much good. Of course, that could just be the media. They tend to report the bad stuff and not the good.

  • Report
  

  by teal on July 5th, 2007

• Actually, reports from the military itself have determined that US troops have killed more civilians than insurgents.

  • Report
  

  by Gideon on July 10th, 2007

• The not so "friendly fire" totals are creeping up as well. Gideon has a point there too. The collateral deaths and damage from " smart bombs" and the like, actually has gone past the number of known insurgents that were the actual targets. It's a no win situation, I'll agree. Hard to hit targets when they are surrounded by friendlies, but then...why prosecute the attack?
  Why don't world leaders do something about it? They have. They made their concerns known. The rest of the world couldn't just bomb the Whitehouse, it would probably kill inocent people and since GWB is a head of state, it'd also be illegal for most countries to do it anyway even if they decided to think like him.

  • Report
  

  by scubabob on December 18th, 2008

• The reason other heads of state aren't doing anything about it is because they're all terrified that we'll invade them next.

  • Report
  

  by Zebulon on December 18th, 2008

• I dunno. We told him to Foffanddie the last time he asked us to join a party in Iraq. He got all uppity for a bit and promptly forgot about it. You can tell him something he doesn't like and his answer is usually to pooh pooh it and then...he goes to his ranch. :)

  • Report
  

  by scubabob on December 18th, 2008