Is Bush a War Criminal?

His date was wrong then.

That looks an awful lot like the Geneva Convention, and it was in Geneva, but IS it THE Geneva Convention?

^ Thanks. Know why we haven't become party to Article I or II?

... is fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed. It contains provisions that would undermine humanitarian law and endanger civilians in war. One of its provisions, for example, would automatically treat as an international conflict any so-called "war of national liberation.'' Whether such wars are international or non-international should turn exclusively on objective reality, not on one's view of the moral qualities of each conflict. To rest on such subjective distinctions based on a war's alleged purposes would politicize humanitarian law and eliminate the distinction between international and non-international conflicts. It would give special status to "wars of national liberation,'' an ill-defined concept expressed in vague, subjective, politicized terminology. Another provision would grant combatant status to irregular forces even if they do not satisfy the traditional requirements to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and otherwise comply with the laws of war. This would endanger civilians among whom terrorists and other irregulars attempt to conceal themselves.

"The reason we didn't sign Protocol I&II is because we thought it could be used by unlawful combatants (read: terrorists) as a way to give themselves Geneva protections."

This backs up my statements -"On the Geneva Convention as relates to detainees in Gitmo , I wonder how many of them qualify as members of an army of a nation that is a signatory to the Convention ?

If you read the whole paper referenced above , you will find many provisions very difficult to live up to due to the the detainees non-alliance with a defined nation or government ."

That is why I believe the current policy in dealing with the people at Gitmo is sound. We don't "need" to give them Geneva type protections, but it is the "right thing to do" to treat them with atleast a modicom of humanity - which is what we're doing.

Bombing civilian targets is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention

and the use of depleted uranium is also a war crime

not to mention hyjacking people to be tortured in secred concentration camps for years without any form of trial

and the list of war crimes and crimes against humanity goes on and on...

Bush is being tried in the court of public opinion.

That's enough for me. :cool:

As far as the Geneva Convention is concerned, when did we start following those guidelines? Those rules went out the same window as the logic behind invading Iraq.

Bush is being tried in the court of public opinion.

That's enough for me.

As far as the Geneva Convention is concerned, when did we start following those guidelines?

Those rules went out the same window as the logic behind invading Iraq.

Bush is not a war criminal.
He is a bad president.
We are all responsible, however, for allowing large American companies to peddle weapons around the world that are used to kill innocent men, women and children. They even get tax breaks while we break our backs and they break hearts.
Those who manufacture and sell weapons are war criminals.

Those who manufacture and sell weapons are war criminals.

I forgot to add this;
Has there been any evidence of Iraq having anything to do with the tragic events of Sept 11?

The "world" outside America pretty disgusted with this "search" for WMD.
Most people believe that if a Dictator built Weapons of mass destruction to defend his "Dictatorship" and was facing a military which would surely defeat him, he would use those WMD during the war. What did Saddam have to lose by firing gas at the invading forces?

The "world" outside America pretty disgusted with this "search" for WMD.