Bush is a War Criminal
This is in response to a post my friend made, but my response was too much for his inferior blogging software to handle, so I have to post it here.
While many suggestions of war crimes on the part of this administration really are hyperbole, the suggestion on your part that any discussion in to the possibility of this president being culpable of war crimes deserves nothing more than a shake of the head is a bit disappointing.
You are more than willing to say "Bush HAS done some terrible things and allowed some terrible things to happen.", but why is it a stretch to say he has done criminal things?
The attack against a sovereign state, without the specific approval of the Security Council of the United Nations, in violation of treaties, on the false pretext of self-defense; This is not only criminal, but unprecedented. I mean, you wouldn't argue that stealing a candy bar is criminal, but essentially stealing an entire army, using it for your own means toward a secret end, this ISN'T criminal?
Since when is a WAR OF AGGRESSION not only criminal, but not THE HIGHEST INTERNATIONAL CRIME?
Perhaps just because Bush hasn't been found guilty, you think he isn't criminal? We are the public, we are not bound by the same legal standards of "innocent until proven guilty". We can examine the evidence freely, without the restrains of a courtroom. Just because he hasn't been found guilty yet, it doesn't mean he isn't guilty.
And when I say found guilty, I mean by some powerful ruling entity like the Hague. Not some rinky dinky group of rag-tag nations like the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, which DID find Bush Guilt for Crimes of Aggression, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity. But that was for stuff he did in Afghanistan, which no one talks about anyways, so it doesn't count, right? And when I say guilty I of course can't talk about the War Crime Tribunal in NYC, that laughable bunch of liberals, of course THEY found him guilty.
Even if the Hague did find this administration guilty of war crimes, no one would give a shit, no one would take notice. When that same entity found Bush 41 administration officials guilty on 19 counts during Desert Storm, did anyone take notice?
Perhaps you are unwilling to call him a criminal because he and other US service personnel are pretty much safe from being just investigated as a report from Amnesty International points out: "no member of the US administration has been subjected to independent investigative scrutiny, despite evidence that human rights violations have been authorized, and evidence that there was a high-level conspiracy to give immunity from prosecution to US agents accused of torture or war crimes."
Of course this administration is guilty of war crimes. Their profiteering from this war is crime enough for me. The only reason you are unwilling to call him a criminal is because you are afraid that people will see you as simply spouting hyperbole. But if you are going to simply dismiss anyone who tries to make a claim that this administration is acting in a criminal way, well that is hyperbole unto itself.
While many suggestions of war crimes on the part of this administration really are hyperbole, the suggestion on your part that any discussion in to the possibility of this president being culpable of war crimes deserves nothing more than a shake of the head is a bit disappointing.
You are more than willing to say "Bush HAS done some terrible things and allowed some terrible things to happen.", but why is it a stretch to say he has done criminal things?
The attack against a sovereign state, without the specific approval of the Security Council of the United Nations, in violation of treaties, on the false pretext of self-defense; This is not only criminal, but unprecedented. I mean, you wouldn't argue that stealing a candy bar is criminal, but essentially stealing an entire army, using it for your own means toward a secret end, this ISN'T criminal?
Since when is a WAR OF AGGRESSION not only criminal, but not THE HIGHEST INTERNATIONAL CRIME?
Perhaps just because Bush hasn't been found guilty, you think he isn't criminal? We are the public, we are not bound by the same legal standards of "innocent until proven guilty". We can examine the evidence freely, without the restrains of a courtroom. Just because he hasn't been found guilty yet, it doesn't mean he isn't guilty.
And when I say found guilty, I mean by some powerful ruling entity like the Hague. Not some rinky dinky group of rag-tag nations like the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, which DID find Bush Guilt for Crimes of Aggression, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity. But that was for stuff he did in Afghanistan, which no one talks about anyways, so it doesn't count, right? And when I say guilty I of course can't talk about the War Crime Tribunal in NYC, that laughable bunch of liberals, of course THEY found him guilty.
Even if the Hague did find this administration guilty of war crimes, no one would give a shit, no one would take notice. When that same entity found Bush 41 administration officials guilty on 19 counts during Desert Storm, did anyone take notice?
Perhaps you are unwilling to call him a criminal because he and other US service personnel are pretty much safe from being just investigated as a report from Amnesty International points out: "no member of the US administration has been subjected to independent investigative scrutiny, despite evidence that human rights violations have been authorized, and evidence that there was a high-level conspiracy to give immunity from prosecution to US agents accused of torture or war crimes."
Of course this administration is guilty of war crimes. Their profiteering from this war is crime enough for me. The only reason you are unwilling to call him a criminal is because you are afraid that people will see you as simply spouting hyperbole. But if you are going to simply dismiss anyone who tries to make a claim that this administration is acting in a criminal way, well that is hyperbole unto itself.