The Sad Truth on Bushco Warcrimes
Looking for war crimes committed by members of the Bush administration is a complicated exercise because there are so many to go around. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo come immediately to mind. The Nuremburg Tribunals at the end of the Second World War defined an aggressive war against another country if that country has not attacked you first or threatened to do so as "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." A number of leading Nazis were executed for their unprovoked attack on Poland. The Bush administration has its own Poland in Iraq, and if there is an American attack on Iran it would also fit the Nuremberg definition. Unlike at Nuremberg, however, no one will be held accountable.
posted by spooked at 9:00 AM
7 Comments:
"Unlike at Nuremberg, however, no one will be held accountable."
So, how does that make you feel? What do you think it says about the US--A?
Would you encourage your readers to get more involved in the political process? If so, how? Would you encourage them to contribute money to political candidates? If so, should they give liberally or merely enough to feel smug that they have "done their part"?
Would you encourage your readers to become more involved in helping to educate people politically so that they are less likely to blindly follow leaders, media, and public opinion?
Do you feel it's a mistake for the U.S. to become entangled in foreign alliances? Should the U.S. Govt's main concern be making life better for ALL Americans without doing so thru means of war, without trickle-down economics, and by taking strong measures such as substantially increasing the marginal tax rate on individual AND corporate earnings? Should the Gov't take whatever action is needed to double or triple the number of doctors in this country?
Should we thoroughly reform the criminal justice system by such actions as decriminalizing everything that doesn't involve hurting another person or theft (and related actions)? Should we stop arresting and jailing people for being under the influence of alcohol, stupidity, or cell phone
use while driving? Should we leave people alone who haven't hurt anyone or caused any damage? Should police be allowed to carry out their duty to"serve and protect" by escorting people home if they are intoxicated? BTW- have you noticed that the trend towards calling it "too impaired to drive" as a way of broadening the definition of who should be arrested? Do we really need much more than a law against reckless driving? Not arbitrary speed limits.
Could this country afford to provide high-quality free education to all Americans from nursery school to obtaining a Ph.D?
Would this country be just as or even more safe if we cut the military budget by 50% or more?
Should we close the 700+ military bases and "bases" currently being operated in nearly every single country on the face of the Earth?
Should EVERYONE be entitled to vote and to defend themselves against those who would harm or steal from us? Should convicted felons also be allowed the same right? If not, then why not? Or, should it be open field day against someone who was convicted of harming another or stealing?
Should EVERYONE be entitled to free healthcare?
Once again, Sphincter, you demonstrate how stupid you are.
"mind. The Nuremburg Tribunals at the end of the Second World War defined an aggressive war against another country if that country has not attacked you first or threatened to do so as "essentially an evil thing..."
Fine and dandy. You conveniently omit the fact that in 1991, at the end of the UN-approved and multi-nation/US-led Desert Storm, the UN Security Council resolutions 678, 687, 688 and 949 provided guidance for the "No-Fly Zones" in northern and southern Iraq.
Keep in mind UN Security Council Resolution 1441, passed in 2002, specifically section 8, which says as follows (in its entirety):
8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
The fact that Iraqi air-defense assets fired on US and Brit aircraft over 250 times during the time between resolution passage (8 Nov 2002) and the time frame immediately before Operation Iraqi Freedom began.
Right there your big, bad, bullshit statement about Nurenburg and it being a war crime to attack a nation that has not "attacked you first". Allied aircraft were fired on *daily* for 5 months by Iraqi armed forces.
So you can take your little bullshit and shove it up your ass with the rest of the crap you spew out here.
1441 does not forbid Iraq from defending itself. Therefore, Spooked's point is valid and yours is valid only to rightwingers and their fascist followers.
what is your point 10:50 - that bush's iraq is not comparable to hitler's poland, or that it is ok that it is comparable to hitler's poland?
10:50 AM--
First, I didn't write the piece.
Second, as if you really give a shit about the UN except when it suits you. Note, the US never did get a final UN resolution authorizing the invasion, even though the previous resolution relating to inspections said they should.
Third, as if Iraq shooting randomly at very likely illegal foreign jets flying over their territory really gave us permission to invade Iraq and create a humanitarian catastrophe.
I haven't seen anything about a humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq on TV.
anonymous 10:50, the no-fly zones were not authorized by UN resolutions in the first place, and the bombings were preparation for aggressive war, and a way to create a pretext for that war.
It was a crime. Quit pretending to support international law. At least Bolton doesn't pretend: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law."
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_downing.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home