Bush and Cheney Tried for War Crimes when Kerry Wins?

Using that rule, then, if it could be shown that Saddam's Iraq shielded, harbored, supported, and protected terrorists, the US's attack was legitimate under International Law?

Iraq undoubtedly had terrorists or terrorist wannabes living within its borders (every large nation does, even the US).

Of course I think arguments could be made that would attempt to draw a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, and the attacks on 9/11, Saddam's support of terrorism. Whether those arguments would fly, is another matter.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for jihad. If Kerry wins we'll see armed muslims dancing in the streets of Bagdhad. It'll be a giant mullah-fest. Wait and see.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for jihad. If Kerry wins we'll see armed muslims dancing in the streets of Bagdhad. It'll be a giant mullah-fest. Wait and see.

I love the topic of this thread and the following it has attracted. The fact is, based on what has been posted here as well as on other threads, many of you could be tried for threats against the president, if you weren't all so irrelevent.

As far as the principal of proportionality is concerned, that is a joke. The use of overwhelming force minimizes casualties on both sides. I would say that the U.S. has exercised great restraint (perhaps too much) in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We could have turned them into parking lots.

That's my prediction. If Kerry wins, you'll see celebrations similar to the ones after 9/11 in muslim communities around the world. It'll be enough to make you wanna puke.

. . . .The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter. That document recognizes that "nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations" (art. 51). Thus, the right of self defense is specifically conditioned on the occurrence of an armed attack -- no armed attack, no right to self defense. Instead, if there is a dispute between two member nations (such as the US and Iraq), they must seek peaceful means of resolving their dispute (art. 33). If those means fail, they are to bring their dispute to the Security Council (art. 37), which is to make recommendations, including referring the dispute to the World Court (art. 36). Only if its recommendations are inadequate or ineffective is the Security Council then permitted to authorize coercion (art. 41) or force (art. 42) as a means of resolving the dispute.

In the case of the present conflict, the US was never attacked by Iraq. As such, the US had no claim to a right of self defense, under article 51 of the UN Charter, as a pretext to attack Iraq. It was, therefore, obligated to seek peaceful means to resolve the dispute, and, if necessary, to refer the dispute to the UN for resolution. The US submitted the dispute to the UN, but the UN Security Council never authorized the use of force (pursuant to article 42 of the Charter) for resolving the dispute. Indeed, the US never sought UN authorization for its use of force, despite Bush's promise to the contrary.

The US is obligated, both by international law and the US constitution, to abide by the terms of its treaties. The UN Charter is such a treaty. The attack on Iraq, therefore, violated the terms of the UN Charter. And since the US was the aggressor, and the war was a breach of the peace, the invasion constituted a war of aggression and a crime against the peace. Furthermore, pursuant to the precedent set by the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, the leaders of a nation that has waged a war of aggression are directly culpable for the resulting war crimes.

The conclusion, therefore, is obvious: George Bush, in launching a war of aggression in contravention of binding international treaties, is guilty of a crime against peace, and he should be held accountable for that crime.
. . .

January 17 2003. Serbian officials will hand over former president Milan Milutinovic to the UN war crimes tribunal at The Hague, the Yugoslav foreign minister said yesterday.

Goran Svilanovic told the Blic daily newspaper that he and Milutinovic agreed on the terms of his surrender to the court, which has charged him with war crimes during a government crackdown against Kosovo Albanians in 1999.

Svilanovic did not say when he could be handed over. He said he hoped the UN tribunal would set Milutinovic free pending the start of his trial partly because of his poor health.

Milutinovic has had two heart operations in recent years.

Though regarded as merely a figurehead, Milutinovic, who was Serbia's president from 1997 until last month, was a member of the inner circle of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

Milutinovic has denied he had any role in war crimes in Kosovo, saying that he had no control over the Serb-led security forces in the southern Yugoslav province.

Any testimony he might offer could prove damaging to Milosevic, who is facing genocide and other war crimes charges before the UN court.

I sincerely doubt a reasonable reading of the Constitution would require the US to abide by the terms of a treaty if to do so would not be in the best interests of national security.