Former UN official suggests War crime probe for Bush team

[alhoon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_elbaradei_memoir

" Former chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei suggests in a new memoir that Bush administration officials should face international criminal investigation for the "shame of a needless war" in Iraq."

"
The U.N. officials resisted, and their teams went on to conduct some 700 inspections of scores of potential weapons sites in Iraq, finding no evidence to support the U.S. claims of weapons of mass destruction.
In his own memoir, published last November, Bush still insisted it was right to invade to remove a "homicidal dictator pursuing WMD." But the ex-president also wrote of a "sickening feeling" when no arms turned up after the invasion, and blamed an "intelligence failure" for the baseless claim, a reference to a 2002 U.S. intelligence assessment contending WMD were being built.
...
ElBaradei cites examples, including the conclusion by his inspectors inside Iraq that certain aluminum tubes were designed for artillery rockets, not for uranium enrichment equipment to build nuclear bombs, as Washington asserted.
"

It was about time someone started asking for those war criminals to face justice. I don't think anyone would even officially suggest it, but at least that's a step towards the right direction. You never know, maybe in some years the blame for the Iraq war would have been placed on the right shoulders.

[Menelik_I]

When everything is a ing War crime, then War Crimes is a worthless definition ... plus if this Happens we can all kiss good bye to the US sovereignty.

[Elemental]

When everything is a ing War crime, then War Crimes is a worthless definition ... plus if this Happens we can all kiss good bye to the US sovereignty.

Everything? This is exactly why they hanged people at Nurnberg. Crimes against peace.

[Col. Tartleton]

Everything? This is exactly why they hanged people at Nurnberg. Crimes against peace.

I thought it was for the planned in detail genocide called the holocaust and the horrors and brutality inflicted upon the people of Europe at the direct orders of the high command and the general "We Takin' Over" attitude of the Reich. Not the "We think that dictator has nuclear weapons and we should take him out and allow for democracy to take root and bloom." goals of the United States.

[Elemental]

I thought it was for the planned in detail genocide called the holocaust and the horrors and brutality inflicted upon the people of Europe at the direct orders of the high command and the general "We Takin' Over" attitude of the Reich. Not the "We think that dictator has nuclear weapons and we should take him out and allow for democracy to take root and bloom." goals of the United States.

Then you thought wrong. Many were convicted of this.

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace

[justicar5]

When everything is a ing War crime, then War Crimes is a worthless definition ... plus if this Happens we can all kiss good bye to the US sovereignty.

The Nuremburg Principals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles

Specificaly in this case artice VI.

You helped write them, so obey them.

Hundreds of thousands of iraqis have died because you didn't, at least have the decency to find out some of there names, and how your goverment killed them, and why, or are they less human because they didn't wear american uniform? Their deaths less important?I bet you could name at least 1 american casualty off the top of your head or at least by l;ooking in the paper, how about 1 iraqi? (To my shame I cannot find a record of their names I can read, do we really have such a low regard for human life that they die without names?)

Oh and before you get high and mighty about Saddam being a dictator, yes he was, thats exactly what America trained and supported him to be. He made the mistake of biting the hand that feeds, every other crime, every murder the gassings (hell you helped nuild those chemical warheads) can be forgiven, but not threatening US hegenomy.

Before you get on your high horse about terrorism when is Oliver Norths trial for his and his superiors orders to the Contras to soft targets, to target civilians, to mutilate people and leave them for their relatives to support? For stating that unless the contras won the 1990 election the murders and bombings would continue.. for a crime 10 times the size of 9/11 he gets a chat show, when does Osama Bun Ladens start? Or hasn't he killed enough civilians?

I thought it was for the planned in detail genocide called the holocaust and the horrors and brutality inflicted upon the people of Europe at the direct orders of the high command and the general "We Takin' Over" attitude of the Reich. Not the "We think that dictator has nuclear weapons and we should take him out and allow for democracy to take root and bloom." goals of the United States.

some where executed for the holocaust others for planning the war. I direct you to the nuremburg principals link above.

If you truly believe the US will allow a democracy to 'bloom' in iraq )honestly, without interference and without military 'advisors' ...well you are far, far more trusting than I.

[Col. Tartleton]

A war crime is when you commit atrocities during a war. An "illegal war" is first off ridiculous, and secondly is not a war crime. War crimes have not been committed warranting the punishment of Bush and the inner circle, only those who crossed thresholds in individual and personal cases of a severe nature. You would have to indite the entirety of 279 the United States Congress members who voted for the war all the general officers involved all the experts who "fabricated" the war and all the soldiers who participated by this standard.

In short go yourself UN.

[alhoon]

You would have to indite the entirety of 279 the United States Congress members who voted for the war all the general officers involved all the experts who "fabricated" the war and all the soldiers who participated by this standard.

Why are the soldiers responsible for this at all?!? The experts that fabricated the lie that led USA to war, yes, they should be tried. The congressmen and women that voted for this believing fabricated lies were naive and stupid but not criminals.

On the other hand, there is now more evidence that USA rushed to war to stop those WMD with the UN officials screaming "WTF?!? Are you insane?! There is no evidence of WMD."
Someone should pay for the soldiers killed in that war.

But if you want semantics, yes, it's not a war crime to fabricate excuses to start a war. It's just a crime that led to an unecessary war. Happy?

[Menelik_I]

Why are the soldiers responsible for this at all?!? The experts that fabricated the lie that led USA to war, yes, they should be tried. The congressmen and women that voted for this believing fabricated lies were naive and stupid but not criminals.

On the other hand, there is now more evidence that USA rushed to war to stop those WMD with the UN officials screaming "WTF?!? Are you insane?! There is no evidence of WMD."
Someone should pay for the soldiers killed in that war.

But if you want semantics, yes, it's not a war crime to fabricate excuses to start a war. It's just a crime that led to an unecessary war. Happy?

The bottom line is that Bush and Co are responsible for their actions to US citizens who elected them, the UN can shove it were we all know.

[Imperial]

The bottom line is that Bush and Co are responsible for their actions to US citizens who elected them, the UN can shove it were we all know.

US citizens didn't elect Bush in 2000.

[Col. Tartleton]

US citizens didn't elect Bush in 2000.

We certainly didn't elect Al Gore.

[Menelik_I]

US citizens didn't elect Bush in 2000.

The Bilderberger stole the election with the help of the Saudi sheiks ... oh wait all that Electoral college thing and election.

[Col. Tartleton]

Why are the soldiers responsible for this at all?!? The experts that fabricated the lie that led USA to war, yes, they should be tried. The congressmen and women that voted for this believing fabricated lies were naive and stupid but not criminals.

On the other hand, there is now more evidence that USA rushed to war to stop those WMD with the UN officials screaming "WTF?!? Are you insane?! There is no evidence of WMD."
Someone should pay for the soldiers killed in that war.

But if you want semantics, yes, it's not a war crime to fabricate excuses to start a war. It's just a crime that led to an unecessary war. Happy?

1. Not by the UN. The UN is a joke that should be dissolved. I am not a citizen of the world I'm an American and I'm skeptical enough of that being a good investment...

2. Not at all. That's not how things work. We didn't punish the Confederates for starting a civil war, we aren't going to blame Bush for invading a country to depose a dictator. It was a bad call, but it wasn't an evil call. It was a mistake, not a debacle. Saddam claimed he had or would have some limited nuclear capability and we already knew he was a douche. So rather than wait around to see, we attacked. Turns out he had been bluffing and we bought it, bringing his demise. Then we thought it would be better to attempt to allow for a legitimate country to form before we left so we wouldn't have to worry about the next genocidal dictator getting nukes. It's working so well...

I've grown fond of bulleting my points today.

[alhoon]

2. ... It was a mistake, not a debacle. Saddam claimed he had or would have some limited nuclear capability and we already knew he was a douche. ... Turns out he had been bluffing and we bought it, bringing his demise.

The difference is that according to said UN official, there was either a huge mistake, or fabricated lie. Perhaps Bush bought his bluff, based on very shady intel. Or people close to Bush didn't bought Saddam's bluff, but fabricated a bluff, served it to USA people and caused an invasion.

There was no bluff. Saddam was screaming there was no WMD, UN inspectors were saying there were no WMD, but some shady intel (IMO fabricated lies by British and USA corporate interests) said Iraq may have been thinking to create WMD.

I think Bush himself knew all too well there wouldn't be any WMD found there. He just didn't care.

Why cant people let this go? How often do you hear about Iraq anymore? I mean, I actually follow events in that part of the world, and aside from continuing to fight a low level counter terror campaign, Iraq has turned the corner and is not going back. They face serious internal issues, but the same people who lean on that in debates surely never thought (and possibly might not have wanted) Iraq would ever get to this point. And I'm included in that. So by what logic do we have to doubt the future?

At the end of the day, removing a genuine dictator who actually did help facilitate the movements of global terrorists to protect his dictatorship, and likely did murder upwards of one million of his own people, etc, isn't a bad end result.

On one hand, I agree with you that Saddam was responsible for a lot of crimes and Iraq is better off now than in 2001.
But Bush and the guys pushing for that war are also responsible for a crime too, whether or not that crime led to a better world. The end doesn't justify the means. Bush didn't say "I decided to attack Iraq because 20 years ago, Saddam killed his own people (with our chemical weapons)" He talked about WMD.

[Poet]

A war crime is when you commit atrocities during a war.

How do you define "atrocities" gentleman?

[Armenum]

Bush and his cronies are responsible for starting an unlawful and breaking international conventions and laws that the US was a signature to. Definitely, there should be some inspection into this and some publicity, but I doubt it will accumulate to anything.

[Menelik_I]

Bush and his cronies are responsible for starting an unlawful and breaking international conventions and laws that the US was a signature to. Definitely, there should be some inspection into this and some publicity, but I doubt it will accumulate to anything.

Be more precise, because this generally only amounts to ''Bush Bad Iraq War wrong'

Something being wrong =/= being against the law, please provide clear info :

1- The war was unlawful in relation to what.
2- What international convention or law signed by the US was breaked by invading Iraq.

[Armenum]

Be more precise, because this generally only amounts to ''Bush Bad Iraq War wrong'

Something being wrong =/= being against the law, please provide clear info :

1- The war was unlawful in relation to what.
2- What international convention or law signed by the US was breaked by invading Iraq.

They violated the UN charter which the US ratified and thus has to legally follow it.

Plus, weapons of mass destruction had not been found, and there was very shady evidence in their existence, despite that US still attacked and thus additionally began a war on flimsy justifications which turned out to be blatantly false and forged.

[Col. Tartleton]

They violated the UN charter which the US ratified and thus has to legally follow it.

Plus, weapons of mass destruction had not been found, and there was very shady evidence in their existence, despite that US still attacked and thus additionally began a war on flimsy justifications which turned out to be blatantly false and forged.

We should never have signed the UN Charter. The United States should not be playing this game. We also don't need a Jus Bellum to remove a dictator who has given us cause for one in the past. We thought we had one via the WMDs. That fell through. So we have had to continue on the equally noble grounds of protecting the people of Iraq from Saddam/Iran/themselves...

The war in Iraq was legitimate. The issue is we didn't impose that standard on all of our enemies... I mean other countries. If we were going to be acting as World Arbitrators, we ought to be more extensive in waging our wars of Law.

But I don't think its a game America should be playing, but since we are playing I intend to win. Not just in Iraq, but everywhere.

Nation policy is that if you screw around with us we'll shove a cruise missile up your ass. Boom. Mission accomplished.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[mongrel]

We should never have signed the UN Charter. The United States should not be playing this game. We also don't need a Jus Bellum to remove a dictator who has given us cause for one in the past. We thought we had one via the WMDs. That fell through.

Only a complete moron would believe Saddam had any weapons capable of threatening the United States or any of its allies. That moron was George W Bush. Either that or he lied to the US people. Powell certianly lied to the UN on his behalf.