Danya said this in response to my response to Conserv's question about Human shields being traitors Human Shields: Traitors?



Now, instead of getting off topic, i decided to start a new thread about this:

Would Bush be a war criminal if he attacks Iraq without U.N. permission & civilians are accidently killed in Iraq?

Absolutly not. Non compliance with the UN resolutions, and the continuous targeting and firing on of coalition aircraft substantiates a resumption of hostilities as outlined in the 1991 cease fire agreement. I believe that all previous legal precedences will validate that unless civilians were intentionally targeted, action on our part will not be illegal.

As much as some people would like to think differently.....UN does not equal world government.

I think at best I would call Bush a war pimp. I agree with Dontreadonme that any conflicting stance that Bush has with the U.N. does not make Bush a "war criminal" on the international scale. The people of America might, however, conclude that he is a war criminal and impeach him, but then the people might call it stalemate considering Dick Cheney is next in line. The quickest way to get rid of him would be for every citizen in America to order him a pizza.

What is more important than the U.N. is NATO. And NATO appears to have very little interest in going to war with Iraq. Go to their web page and you won't find "Iraq" anywhere on the Issues menu. At best NATO supports a resolution for Iraq which tells me that the powers of NATO agree with the consulship of the United Nations and not the United States.

Here are some basic tests to determine what makes a war just. I don't know what international law on it is...I will wait and hope someone else may fill us in.

But remember, a just war is more than just being a legally acceptable war. For instance, if the U.N. lost it's mind and decided to draft a law, ban together and start attacking enemies at will it may be legal but it would not be just.

The catechism of the Catholic Church says a legitimate war is one in which:
1) The damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain; 2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; 3) there must be serious prospects of success; 4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. 5) A good Christian cannot support fighting a war for national glory, for revenge, to grab territory or out of vague fears of some future attack, aka pre-emptive war. Wars, like all use of force, can only be fought in self-defense, or in the legitimate defense of another.

Here is another measure of legitimacy from a study of the Just War Tradition, though the criteria for it varies slightly among scholars, they say there are seven basic requirements that must be met in order for a war to be considered just.
A just war must:
1) have a just cause;
2) be waged by a legitimate authority;
3) be formally declared;
4) be fought with peaceful intentions;
5) be used as a last resort;
6) have a likelihood of success; and
7) use means proportionate to the ends.

No. If America attacks Iraq without U.N. permission and it is proven that the United States systematically kills Iraqi civilians, then someone will be charged with war crimes.

But going to war against another country and killing civilians who get in the way is certainly not a war crime by any stretch of the imagination. Killing civilians happens in war.

Take a look at this list of war crimes by a guy at Cal-Tech.

There is a definite distinction between going to war against the wishes of the international community and committing an actual war crime.

I think that's questionable. It could be borderline criminal...it depends on his justifications for war. (please don't repeat them. I know by heart and 12 year old attrocities and alleged weapons and alleged terrorist ties.) We have all heard the Bush position.

However, with the majority of the UN , Iraq's immediate neighbors (who will suffer hardships with the war) and about 75% of the entire world feeling the case has not been made it is only justified and legitimate to the ones waging the war. You still have a huge population that feels otherwise.

So, to weigh who may be right in the argument for war you can go back to some of the tests for a just-war I don't see him passing. (many here will disagree I know.)

1) He is in no way close to proving that Saddam is a clear and imminent threat to the United States since the nuclear, chemical, and bio weapons have not been found even after months of inspections. (You can claim he has them all you want but proof is justification...allegations are not.)

2) Iraq did not attack America first.

3) He is striking a country that's no military match what-so-ever and will hardly be able to defend itself against the most powerful military in the world launching an attack on it's cities, water supplies, bridges, etc.

4) He is seeking regime change and occupation which could be argued is a grab territory and could also argue that the result will not end in peace or freedom.

5) Shock and awe is a possible crime against humanity if he uses it in a city with the population of Baghdad.

I'm too tired to think of any others. I don't need to defend my opinions on each one so please don't come back with the same old one liners about what you think he'll do and why I must be wrong it's getting old. Instead maybe you can come up with some of your own points showing why you feel he meets the tests of a just war.

How can it be legal to invoke a UN resolution as a mandate for the use of military force when the UN has not passed a resolution sanctioning the use of such force?

Purely from a legislative standpoint, that argument is fundementally flawed!

No it's not. If the UN won't act by taking up force against Iraq, than it has proven it'self irrelavent & the United States must act with the help of the few that will come & help. it may not be legal, but if the UN won't act, then someone will have to alone

Regardless of whether the US should or should not attack Iraq, to do so without UN sanction on the pretext of enforcing the will of the UN is non-sensical and illogical. Is it legal? Well, you yourself have admitted that it may not be.

Thank you for providing all of us with a clear and distinct measure of the 'legitimacy' of this war.

Now, why are you calling it unjust since every single one of the above conditions have been met....in spades?

The text of the majority of the resolutions support the US right to enforce them.
An interesting essay on the argument for just this case is found Here
It's from the 1998 crisis, but is just as applicable today IMO.

But the fact remains that the UN has not endorsed the use of military sanctions. Ergo, for the US is to take military action is to pursue a war which is, according to the original UN charter which the US signed in 1946, not legal.

Here is a defination for war criminal and war crime from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=war%20crime



War crime is the use of a material such as genocide to humans, adn torture. If we goto war i am certin he will not be classified as a war criminal. America might have its own thoughts about this and id like to hear it

1. Satisfied--Iraq continues to violate the terms of the cease fire which ended the Gulf War.
2. Satisfied--The US in a continuation of the Gulf War
3. Satisfied, or will be.
4. Satisfied.
5. Satisfied. If you don't agree with this, why did the US go through all the trouble of approaching the UN in the first place?
6. Definitely Satisfied.
7. Satisfied, assuming the US follows its past pattern of carefully choosing targets and surgically carrying out deployment.

Of course, it is always debateable whether war is avoidable, another means may work better, etc. However, as long as you can REASONABLY satisfy the requirements, I think its justified.

My question (as a Catholic is) : Where does the Pope's opinion differ from mine. I wonder which of these points he sees as unsatisifed. (I would guess #5...)

Well, you and the Pope may both be Catholics, but the Pope certainly isn't American, and I'm guessing that's where the difference of opinion might stem from.

I've already made my points. You're welcome to make your own.

So, no non-American could view this war as just? What exactly are you saying?

I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any way he can be found a war criminal because of the way Gulf War I ended.

Iraq signed a cease fire agreement and the UN voted he was violating that agreement with the previous resolution. The next resolution I thought was intended to state that the conditions stated in the previous resolution have not been met (must disarm, etc).

Personally, I'm against this particular war and think the whole deal stinks to high heaven. But I'm pretty sure Bush is legally justified due to the previous 17 resolutions before the last one they are debating.

I wouldn't go that far, but I think that various cultural groups will be predisposed to have particular but differing views on a range of subjects - including the potential war with Iraq.

I would hazard that the majority of Americans see the actions of the US as essential to the maintenance of peace and stability in the world, and believe that the US has a responsibility to take these actions in order to protect not only its own citizens and interests, but also to liberate from oppression those who do not dwell within the 'Free World'.

I would guess that he majority of Europeans, however, see the actions of the US as part of a calculated strategy of expansionism and imperialism, designed to ultimately secure the US as the unassailable dictator of world policy, and executed through the piecemeal extension of American political and economic hegemony in key regions throughout the world.

The Pope is a European.

An excellent (and brief!!) piece in the Weekly Standard.
Weekly Standard

Colin Powell's response to the question of imperialism is quite true:



Excellently put.

Yeah, it's not like America established a dictatorship in Cuba after the Spanish American War or annexed Hawaii or anything...

Come on. That quote is pure poetry. Just because he speaks eloquently doesn't mean he is right.

What happened in the 1800s is hardly relevant. He said the last 100 years, and we are talking about current events. We all know that the US started its run of imperialism in the early 1800s (Manifest Destiny).

Don't just spout words, make sense.

It's one thing to not agree with the war, but to call Bush a war criminal is a little to far, killing a man who kills his own people doesn't seem like such a terrible thing to me.

CP

Wasn't Cuba turned over to the U.S. in 1901?

You have a point but that isn't the part that makes him a war criminal. Raining thousands of bombs on a city and knowingly accepting the thousands of civilian casualties that result will make him one

If you are trying to get one man you don't need 3000 bombs in a few hours. Even if they are smart bombs you likely don't have 3,000 targets that don't severely impact the people themselves. It appears that their plan is designed with absolutely no regard for innocent civilians. It's overkill. That plus the fact that war is arguably not the only option will cumulate to form a very ugly picture of Bush and America. If it would go as far as charges I don't know.

Splitting hairs, are we?

The UN charter states that no member state may attack another member state pre-emptivly. the US congress ratified the treaty known as the UN charter, making US law under article six, clause 2 of the united states constitution. there is an exemption to use of force in the UN charter (article 51) but it allows only for self-DEFENSE.

seeing as Iraq has not now, nor in the past, attacked the united states (this does NOT include US interests) this war is a violation of the un charter thus a violation of the US constitution. does this make bush a war criminal? no. just a simple criminal. if he were to use WMDs on iraq (as he has threatened to do) he WOULD be a war criminal.

Unabomber, you are respectfully, mistaken. Iraq has violated the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement. There is nothing pre-emptive about using military force to implement the terms of the cease fire and various UN resolutions that call for said means of enforcement.
A cease fire agreement is not the same as a peace treaty. A legal state of hostilities have existed between the coalition forces and the nation of Iraq since April of 1991.

[quote=Danya,Mar 6 2003, 07:23 PM]
CP [/QUOTE]
You have a point but that isn't the part that makes him a war criminal. Raining thousands of bombs on a city and knowingly accepting the thousands of civilian casualties that result will make him one

If you are trying to get one man you don't need 3000 bombs in a few hours. Even if they are smart bombs you likely don't have 3,000 targets that don't severely impact the people themselves. It appears that their plan is designed with absolutely no regard for innocent civilians. It's overkill. That plus the fact that war is arguably not the only option will cumulate to form a very ugly picture of Bush and America. If it would go as far as charges I don't know. [/quote]
Danya,

Do you truly believe that we will be "Raining thousands of bombs on a city"
in residential districts? Or that all 3000 bombs will be dropped only in cities?

I don't, I believe we will be targeting military and infrastructure targets. Given that some bombs will miss their intended targets but you write as if we will be intentionally targeting Civilian targets. Is that your intention?

Yes I agree some civilians will die, during the bombing. I agree that is terrible but unavoidable in war.

I will agree if you are trying to state that sadam will place civilians around these military and infrastructure targets, but would that not make sadam a War Criminal not Bush.

I don't see 3000 bombs as overkill. I see it as an attempt to demoralize, what ever Iraq forces that remain after the bombing. Hopefully when the bombing is over the majority of Iraq's forces will surrender, like they did in the gulf war.
Any thing we can do to avoid fighting street to street in Iraq will save civilian and military life, remember Mogadishu?
If we can show Iraq's forces how futile their cause is maybe they will do the smart thing and surrender.


unabomber,

Have you seen the movie Clear and Present Danger?

Iraq's known Chemical Weapons, had them when the inspectors left and isn’t willing to fully cooperate and show UN officials where he disposed of them, and blatant support of Terrorism, paying money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, seems like Clear and Present Danger to me.

That self-defense thing explains why the UN never has gotten on our butts for bombing SAM sites in the
No-Fly Zones


QUOTE (Danya @ Mar 6 2003, 07:23 PM)


Whoa. You think he plans to rain bombs on cities, killing civies? I don't think so. When in cities & going after weapons factories, the use of laser-guided bombs will be used. The chance of them straying off course & hitting civilian sites are low

*Edited to change a word

Aje, here is what I think...they say they will drop 3,000 bombs 'on Baghdad' within 48 hours. So, most likely the number is highter but even if it isn't think about it. I know it doesn't seem like a lot to you because it isn't your country that is going to go through it. They plan on 'disrupting' water supplies for example. Poisoning the water is unacceptable. There is no military gain larger than the sickness and death this will cause the population we pretend to want to save.

I also think Bush should have to answer to war crimes for the killing of two suspects that died while being interrogated with our new torture techniques. I assure you that these techniques will come home to our soil if not this year in the next few. The G-Bay prisoners were just the beginning. Who knows how many men there have been murdered or how many were innocent or how dangerous they are? There is no crucial oversite in the justice system anymore. This will effect the innocent and the guilty, foreign and domestic.

If you pay close attention you will see that there are many crimes that are being brought up...such as the round ups in the Rowely's FBI report. Such as falsified documents that accused Iraq of building nuclear weapons in the first place. And for going to war against this Resolution even though the council is opposed. The Resolution did not indicate a time limit. One isn't going to be added now no matter how hard Bush tries to fix that oversight.

It's because he has caused the world to fear the U.S. more than they do Iraq! How bad must we be to lose a popularity contest against Saddam that people won't support a war that we are supposed to be fighting for their safety too.

So what? They were connected to a group that killed 3,000 Americans in 3 hours.

I hate to burst your bubble GA, the "no-fly" zones are illegal. they were not set up and authorized by the UN. they were set up and are run exclusively by the US and UK. ( http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/old_site/airwar8.html - http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill1204.html - http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=11&ItemID=2700 - http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp ) we are committing AIR PIRACY. we are illegally flying in their airspace, this is why the UN never goes after Iraq, they have the right to defend themselves. or are the Iraqi's just supposed to allow an outside nation continually bomb them and do nothing?

one of the Geneva conventions (I forget which) strictly forbids bombing of civilian infrastructure, such as roads, electrical, or water facilities. the planes in the illegal NFZs have actually bomb electrical plants in the past (thus causing water facilities to shut down, resulting in spilt raw sewage) speaking of violating Geneva conventions (and other treaties- http://www.isd.net/mbayly/facesofresistance6.htm )the sanctions prevent Iraq from getting chlorine, as it can possibly be used to make chemical weapons (they call it "dual-use") there are machine parts that are also considered "dual-use" that could be used to clean up the mess that causes diseases like cholera, and other diseases that have been eliminated from western countries.



goamerica, torture is a violation of the Geneva convention, which we ratified (remember, when congress ratify's a treaty, it becomes US LAW) it does not matter WHO was tortured. and isn't torture one reason Saddam needs to go. I know he torture his own people, not outsiders, but once you start torture of terrorists, you are far more likely to start torturing all major criminals, like murders or rapists. and besides, info extracted under "duress" is unreliable.

these actions, combined with many others, DOES make bush, and the rest of the government, going back to 1991 war criminals. they MUST be brought to answer for their crimes.

The No-Fly Zones were put up to protect the Kurds in the North & South because Saddam decided to gas them when they started to try to knock him out of power & since the U.S. & the U.K. were the only ones that cared for their lives, we constructed the No-Fly Zones. The UN doesn't approve of it because they know we are right & they don't want to admit it.






The Geneva Convention only applies to POW's & these guys aren't POW's because there hasn't been a declaration of war.

Well geeze, why not call FDR a war criminal, the A-bomb killed how many civilians? Oh yeah, that's right he was a Democrat, so he can't be a war criminal.

CP

When you want to string someone up for critisizing America you say it's because this is war and they should shut up. When you want to give away all our freedom and privacy it's because this is a war. When someone says the War on Terror isn't a real war you say it is.

Danya, please adress my point, if you are prepared to call W a war criminal you should also be prepared to call FDR, argueably the best American pres. one too.

CP

I thought it was truman that ordered the a-bombs dropped on japan? anyway, whoever it was is a war criminal, YES. but this is about GW, not fdr or truman.

GA, by your logic I could be capurtered declared an "enemy-combatant" and not a soldier and it would be okay to torture me for info. not all soldiers wear uniforms or fight for a country. there WAS a declaration of war, but not by us. in 1996 usama bin laden declared war upon america and the west. this has been sensationalised as "jihad" (jihad actually means holy struggle, trying to quit smoking could be a jihad)

like I said, we start by torturing "terrorists" for info, and it becomes an accepted practice, what is to keep it from being accepted pratice on kidnappers or murderers or rapists? because eventually, it will be.

and again the NFZs are ILLEGAL, what we are doing is air piracy. the Iraqi's have EVERY right to fire on coalition jets that are bombing their country.-- http://search.cometsystems.com/search.php?...es%2F29103.html (sorry it is an archived copy)
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1999/353/353p3b.htm -- I have provided SIX different sources, you haven't provided ONE. I want to see sources for YOUR argument.

You could be right about Truman, but the point I am making is that the term "war criminal" can be aplied to any leader that led through a war that had loss of civilian life.

CP

This is about Bush. But if it's important to you that I address it I will indulge your curiosity. FDR, from what I know, was a good president. I am not that well read on the man. And even if I were it would not relieve this President of any guilt.

Count me in that logic also. Hypothetically, of course, if you were found in my combat zone with a weapon and engaging in hostilities against US forces, you would be an enemy combatant. Most legal and accepted definitions of a 'soldier' are the wearing of a uniform and fighting for a country. If this were not the case, every disgruntled nitwit with a gun across the globe, could be considered a soldier.

How do you discuss anything values with someone who

.....supports Palestinian terrorists because, well because they don't got no army

.....when discussing war criminals, ignores the madman from Baghdad who is so evil that even the 'useful idiots' who went there as human shields had to bail out because he insisted they set up at military installations

....throws out terms like 'circular logic' when confronted with their own flawed arguments

.....hates this country and everything it stands for so much it just oozes from everything she/he posts

yes Saddam is evil, he does need to be taken care of, but by the Iraqi people themselves. they obviously do not want to change their government. Hussein allows them to buy AK47s, does that sound like a totalitarian dictator? he is nothing more then a thug dictator, he doesn't give a flying rats a** what the people think longs as they are not a threat to his power (like he perceives the kurds to be) in fact, he is arm members of the ba'ath party free of charge. (others are still allowed to purchase guns if they can afford them)

America has a dismal record of creating democracies through intervention. and let us not forget HOW the madman got his power: the CIA backed him and helped take over the presidency. WE put him in power, and built up Iraq:- http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...ec29¬Found=true -
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

I do not hate this country and everything it stands for, if anything I love this country enough to question my government. a patriot is not someone that blindly follows like a sheep what the government says. a patriot will fight to the death to defend the constitution from ALL enemies, meaning invaders as well as a tyrannical government. And when quoting the framers is enough to raise suspicion from the feds, the government is tyrannical. no, I do not hate this country, but I do hate this government, and consider them enemies of the constitution and the people.

and just because you wear a uniform doesn't mean you're not a terrorist. (though many low ranking soldiers are "just following orders" that is NOT a defense against war crimes, as was displayed in Nuremberg) shock and awe tactics are intended to scare the Iraqi's (meaning people's militia's, ie civilians) into not defending their home. this is a terrorist tactic(ie meant to terrorize)or what of the IDF, who use 1000 lb bombs to kill one man (dropped into an apartment complex) or indiscriminately shell a neighbor hood killing children, or launching rockets into Palestinian "refugee" camps, killing more children and a pregnant women. this is getting off topic though, so I will stop here.

the original topic was "is bush a war criminal?" and again I will say yes, for all the reasons I pointed out earlier, but also for supplying the terrorist regime of Israel, who are bent on genocide of the Palestinian people (a war crime) with money and weapons. supporting a war criminal is a war crime in and of itself, as is helping with genocide. bush and the entire government are war criminals and MUST be held responsible for their crimes!

This thread serves as a good example of a good thread gone bad.

It was off-topic early on, and should have been closed then.

We let it go, and we all see how it ended.

Mike