COMMENTS:
As much as I disagree with the Iraq war, I think the case is weak.
Definitely, on counts 1, 3, 5, and 7.
Bush's decision to act unilaterally (I do not recognize the facade of the Coalition of the Bribed) underscores that this was no humanitarian effort. In fact, that rationalization never even came up until after his first two excuses were discredited.
A war of aggression, under false pretenses ... torture and abuse of prisoners ...
If this was done by 'an enemy,' we'd be up in arms with indignation.
My comment indicates that it would be extremely unlikely that a substantial enough case could be built to send him to a war crimes tribunal especially considering the precendent it would set. Impeachment is more likely.
Perhaps George Bush is a war criminal; perhaps not.
The public will not prosecute him because in their heart of hearts, they WANT someone, anyone, to be punished for 911, and lacking clear targets, they enjoy someone, even if it's the wrong someone, getting hurt.
I'll add that the burden of proof for someone to be convicted of war crimes by and International War Crimes Tribunal is FAR higher than that which would be required for impeachment.
I don't know enough of the salient facts to make any sort of judgment.
What Cathexis said.
by isay on Fri May 19, 06 3:51pm
[+]
You can get him on 1 & 2 but he can always defend himself and say that it wasn't part of his policy. Violations of the rules of war happen all the time, the only problem is that there is lack of evidence and the courts look at the policies more than they do at the acts. That's a mistake that the courts make.
You can definately get him on #3. It's part of US policy but like everything else, the US government can always say that it wasn't the policy and it can pull the "only a few bad apples" card.
I doubt you can get him on #4. Unless you want to count politicides, which you can't.
You can get him on #5. The war was based on false information and the government knew. Based on the actions of government run corporations, it's obvious that it was all planned ahead of time. It's obvious that the US went there for economical and geo-political reasons.
Can't get him on #6 but I don't know every international treaty.
You can get him on #7 because it ties in with #5. You can also get his entire coalition on #7.
You can get him, yes. But lawyers, especially those who defend the government always make it so that the books favor them even though they are wrong.
|
