Is Bush the Lame Indictable For War Crimes?

apotropoxy · #1 (**permalink**) 07-03-2006, 11:25 AM

1. The SCOTUS has ruled in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that, among other things,
a) common article 3 of the [b]Geneva Convention does apply to actions of the USA in its perpetual war against the Terror.
b.) It ruled that the USA is in plain violation of common Rule 3.
A clear case can be made that the prosecutors of this criminal attack and occupation of Iraq are in violation of The War Crimes Act of 1994 and the federal anti-torture statute 18.U.S.C./2340A. Read on...

Quote:

The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim’s death.
http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/conte..._usc_2340A.htm

2. The SCOTUS has laid the groundwork for criminal prosecutions for Bush the Lame and his cabal.

Sadistic-Savior · #2 (**permalink**) 07-04-2006, 07:19 AM

Quote:

a) common article 3 of the Geneva Convention does apply to actions of the USA in its perpetual war against the Terror.

From what I understand the Geneva Conventions only apply to other signatory nations. Terrorist groups are not signatories.

Also, they Geneva Conventions only apply to enemy combatants...which are identified by uniform. Since terrorists do not have uniforms, the conventions do not apply to them.

Explain why these points are wrong. If you cannot, then they have not committed war crimes.

Quote:

A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture.

At best, this could only be used against the people actually responsible for the torture. Since the administration has never explicitly ordered people to be tortured, there is no way the law can be applied to them. Sorry.

Quote:

2. The SCOTUS has laid the groundwork for criminal prosecutions for Bush the Lame and his cabal.

Yeah, good luck with that.

kaladrew · #3 (**permalink**) 07-04-2006, 07:28 AM

you are aware that any country can charge people for war crimes. Kissinger, as an example, cannot travel to France, Chile or several other countries in South America over what he did in Chile or he will be arrested.

If a country can show that Bush set up an atmoshpere of illegal activity that leads to the murder of innocent families then he could be tried - Hitler never killed anyone personally (JP5 loves WWII analogies) but he was guilty beyond guilty in the war crime department.

Sadistic-Savior · #4 (**permalink**) 07-04-2006, 07:32 AM

Quote:

A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Combatant

War crimes are irrelevant. Terrorists do not count as combatants, under the geneva conventions.

Sadistic-Savior · #5 (**permalink**) 07-04-2006, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Hitler never killed anyone personally (JP5 loves WWII analogies) but he was guilty beyond guilty in the war crime department.

Hitler did deliberately authorize slave labor and extermination for a specific class of people.

Bush has not done the same with torture. It could be argued that he did not do enough to prevent it, but there is no evidence that he told people to torture.

nawbut · #6 (**permalink**) 07-04-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Hitler did deliberately authorize slave labor and extermination for a specific class of people.

Though I hate to give any cause for glee among the neo-nazis who visit here; no evidence has ever been produced which finds that Hitler ever explicitly authorised or ordered the extermination of any people....(but could it have been effected without his authority?).

apotropoxy · #7 (**permalink**) 07-04-2006, 01:06 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Quote:

a) common article 3 of the Geneva Convention does apply to actions of the USA in its perpetual war against the Terror.

From what I understand the Geneva Conventions only apply to other signatory nations. Terrorist groups are not signatories.

The Supreme Court has just ruled that the Geneva Conventions DO apply to the cases in question. (See link)

Quote:

Also, they Geneva Conventions only apply to enemy combatants...which are identified by uniform. Since terrorists do not have uniforms, the conventions do not apply to them.

I believe that the Conventions apply to those parties who signed the agreements. The USA is a signer to the agreements and therefore are bound by international law to observe them. Can you show me any category called "unlawful combatant" in any of the Geneva Conventions or Protocols? Such a category does not exist. The Bush administration's use of such a category is an obvious attempt at an end run around the international law. This is why our SCOTUS applied the Geneva Conventions to the current cases.

Quote:

Explain why these points are wrong. If you cannot, then they have not committed war crimes.

This statement is, on its face, illogical. My capability to articulate a legal position has no bearing on whether crimes have been committed.

Quote:

A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture.

At best, this could only be used against the people actually responsible for the torture. Since the administration has never explicitly ordered people to be tortured, there is no way the law can be applied to them. Sorry.

The precedents established at Nuremberg allow the Commander-in-Chief to be prosecuted. They also allow Saddam to fall under scrutiny.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode