• I don't believe he's committed any war crimes... otherwise I'm sure other world leaders would do something about it.
  • Yes he should be tried for war crimes. Sending innocent soldiers off to die. Who would arrest him?!
  • There is nothing good to report from Iraq. Suicide bombers did not exist in Iraq before the US invasion. Bush should be charged with war crimes. The invasion was a war crime.
  • I think this is a very good question but dangerous because people get very emotional about it. To arrest someone who has the lawmakers under his own thumb is pretty difficult because to arrest somebody it is necessary that he brakes the law. Who can change the law would be pretty stupid to be arrested. I'm not saying that Bush is intelligent, (far from me!) but he knows how to defend his personal interests very, very, very well! Much better than I initially thought. The UN is weak and divided, nothing will come out of there. I think the best thing is for the common people like us to investigate more, read more, complain more and get on the streets. We have to stop just believeing what we are told but ask ourselves questions and get our government to give us real answers. Look at Micheal Moore's movies. Don't vote Bush and his allies. When/if that happens there will be no war.
  • I dont think he should be tried for war crimes but I dont think he should be in power either...his decisions are wrong and his way of thinking is self-centered. We removed (yes i am military) a potential world threat from power and had him tried and convicted for crimes against not only his people but those surrounding him. War has been around for thousands of years over much stupider shit...Like sleeping with a wife or disrespecting a king, etc. It goes on and will still be here after we are all dead and gone...;)
  • I know theres a lot of downrating around these answers / questions on this topic but I think the thing to bear in mind from an objective point of view is that Mr Bush has committed crimes against humanity, whatever his position may be, he is still accountable to the law. He has carried out an illegal war, in the words of the UN. The head of the UN should order his immediate arrest and bring him before a war crimes court so the evidence against him can be heard and then his defence heard too. If he is found guilty then he should stand for sentence.
  • No war crimes arrest for the President. The only person, under law, with authority to arrest a sitting president is the.................. U.S. Marshal
  • Yes. The biggest terrorist in the world right now sits in the white house. He should be tried like any other warmongering monster. If I had the authority I would be more than happy to do it myself. I realize downratings for this will be plentiful. However it is the truth of it. This war benefits his pockets. It doesn't benefit the country that he is supposed to be heading. It surely doesn't benefit those people he is sending our soldiers to terrorize. Many of our people die every day for no reason. It is pitiful. Iraq did nothing to provoke an attack. We do not belong there. We are giving them democracy to death. It does not work here; why does anyone think it will work there? The simple answer is, it wont. So many people are dying every day.... pushing a moot point? They do not want us there, we should not be there. It is that simple. Bush wants to pad his pockets. He doesn't care who dies for it. Blood for money... blood for oil. So yes, he most definitley should be tried. Now I'll take cover while the negative points are thrown in my direction. At least it's honest, even if it is semi controversial.
  • International law, like American law, requires that a person clearly be on notice that what he has done is forbidden. The reality is that Bush has been very careful to stay within the boundaries of US and international law. It is often argued that Bush started an illegal war, but the facts don’t support this. The UN (i.e. Nuremburg trials) prohibition of starting a war of aggression is actually not law until the term “war of aggression” is defined by the UN, which is scheduled to occur in 2009. Thus, Bush could not have violated such law. However, even if there was a valid prohibition against a war of aggression, it is still questionable whether this is a war of aggression. Prior to the start of the war Saddam Hussein ordered that British and US planes be shot down in the Iraq no-fly zones. Anti-war advocates argue that the no-fly zones were not part of the surrender from the first gulf war, and therefore Iraq did not have to comply. Even if this is true (which it partially is), that does not give Saddam the authority to take aggressive action against US and British planes. Just because a president takes unpopular action, doesn’t mean the action is illegal. I have no doubt that the International Courts of Justice would have long ago convened a tribunal against Bush if they believed his action was clearly illegal. As for who would arrest Bush, the answer is any member nation. Bush certainly wouldn’t be arrested on American soil. But it should be noted that an arrest does not have to occur before a tribunal is convened. To sum this up, international law is reluctant to interfere with the sovereignty of a nation. The only exception is when a nation (or its leader) takes action that is clearly contrary to international law. And despite how much you dislike Bush’s actions, his actions do not rise to this level.
  • Of course not. This is an asinine question.
  • not sure about war crimes, but he most definitely should be impeached and be found guilty on all impeachment charges!
  • bout ten years ago we almost threw out Bill Clinton for sex? But Bush lied bout 9/11(and honestly who the hell really knows what happened? we never will) Sent us into Afghanistan(later said "I could honestly care less about Osam Bin Laden) Sent us into Iraq (mission accomplished?) Defied the U.N. and Nato Put up the Patriot Act(if your not that the nur a terrorist right?) Put up No Child Left Behind (so the schools that have the lowest means of education and test scroes get no funding?? wtf?) hmmm....economy hasnt been in tip top shape latley and dont say the presdient cant effect the economy cuz what did he tell everyone to do after 9/11? shop...and people did You know what I wouldnt prosecute him I'd send him to Iraq
  • No. Although I think Bush lied and at the very least stretched the truth in order to get his perpetual war, whether what he did was illegal is debatable. Besides, if we try him, we have to try 3/4 of the government. As much as it is popular now to denounce the war or the handling of (depending on how your district is divided if you are up for re-election soon), most of the people in office that are still in office voted for or stood by while Bush did it. They are just as guilty as the guy who rides shotgun in a bank robbery. So unless we impeach and try damn near everybody, let George leave in peace and retire into the delusion he made us safer. As fun as beating dead horses can be ( Hi PETA!), live horses provide more fun!
  • I'm just going to say that if he is I would like to do the arresting.
  • Please don't insult the crimal, Bush is way below that.
  • Yes, but you'd have to charge (and hang, if the Nuremberg Conventions are anything to go by) every post-World War II American president as well. Even Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
  • Absolutely, as many international law experts have publicly stated. And the question isn't whether he should but how soon he can be prosecuted.
  • Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
  • That's insane. With exception to the "fringe" out there, the majority of experts agree that this is just ridiculous. Of course, the nutty few are screaming pretty loudly...but they are the nutty few. According to the International Criminal Court, war crimes include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws and customs that can be applied in international armed conflict, and in armed conflict "not of an international character", as listed in the Statute, when they are committed as part of a plan or policy or on a large scale. These may include, but are not limited to: 1. Violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment 2. Collective punishments 3. Taking of hostages 4. Acts of terrorism 5. Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault 6. Pillage 7. The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples 8. Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.
  • Yes, the whole dark trinity, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and to a lesser extent the rest of that bunch.
  • Bush Cheney, and 'Rummy' for a start.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy