Americans you have just had a regime change yesturday, will you now put them on trial for war crimes?l?
928188
Yes, put them on trial for removing a barbaric religious government (the Taliban) and toppling a brutal dictator (Saddam).
955694
John, You ask serious questions and you deserve serious answers -- even though they may not be what you want to hear.\n\nThe tribunal that convicted Saddam was not set up by the Americans, it was set up by the Iraqis themselves under provision of extant Iraqi law.\n\nTo group the rest of your questions together: \nIt's very important that Saddam by tried by his countrymen, and not by the World Court, or any other international tribunal. To try him there would have been an admission that the Iraqis lacked the ability to administer justice in their own land.\n\nWhether you or I agree with the whole Iraqi invasion is irrelevant. The fact is, now, it is imperative to do whatever it takes to send the message that the Iraqi government is in charge of its own destiny. How else can the fledgeling government claim any credibility at all if it fails to take on the responsibility of prosecuting this heinous criminal? \n\nAs to the release date of the sentence -- that date was established months ago when the verdict was announced. I doubt there was any connection between the announcement and the election in America. The new government in Iraq has been eager in recent months to demonstrate as much distance between their actions and the desires of the Americans as possible (consider the recent order by the government for the Americans to pull down blockades in Sadr City) I just don't believe they would be willing to be used like this.\n\nAnd finally, it really is worth noting -- you're correct, Saddam may have been tried by (what you call) "politcal/ethnic opponents;" but he was convicted on the basis of overwhelming amounts of unimpeachable evidence as to his active complicity in genocide. We owe it to ourselves to remember that.\n\nCheers, mate.
843287
Nope. Thanks to the Republicans, you don't need a trial for someone to be punished for supporting terrorism. You just need to point your finger at them.\n\nThat is one of the reasons why people are sick and tired of Republican tyranny and will vote Democrat today.
705750
They have too long... and how I wish they could be charged with war crimes.. but it will never happen.  If it was me or you.. we'd be in jail , likely in front of a firing squad within a minute... but not them.. politicians are invincible.. they can lie and cheat and kill and.. it just doesn't matter.
1108975
In keeping with their "Aid & Comfort To The Enemy" agenda-the liberals will do anything;say anything to harm the U.S. under President Bush because they can no longer win elections .They have done more to hurt the morale of our troops than ever before and I'm wondering why we don't hold trials for treason. John Kerry & Jane Fonda would be the first to be tried .The far left & the drive-by media were strangely silent when Zarqawi was video-taped beheading people-but are the first to jump on the band wagon against our troops while in harms way .There ought to be a law!
618823
Imagine going down to your local brewpub or coffee shop. You meet some friends. The talk turns to the war. You criticize the President and his wealthy supporters. Next thing you know, a couple of husky fellows at the next table grab you, hustle you out the door and down to the local police station. You are arrested on a charge of sedition. Within months you are indicted, tried and convicted. The judge sentences you to 5-10 years in prison — and off you go! Think this could never happen? Well, it happened not that long ago — during World War I — to scores of ordinary people in Montana. They discovered very painfully that their free speech rights had been stripped away by the state legislature.\n\nThis site is about the 76 men and three women convicted of the crime of sedition in Montana in 1918 and 1919. The law they ran afoul of was possibly the harshest anti-speech law passed by any state in the history of the United States. Forty of those men — and one woman — served prison terms at the state penitentiary in Deer Lodge under sentences of up to 20 years. They were sent there for simply expressing their opinions — about President Wilson, about America's entry into World War I, about the armed forces, or about some other government agency. One man was sentenced to 7 - 20 years for saying the wartime food regulations were a "big joke." Others were convicted but only fined. A handful were found not guilty.
951715
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the courts ruled that an enemy combatant, without uniform, is a war criminal, and could be detained indefinitely (until hostilities end, but until then, indefinitely), and that he could be tried by the US in whatever time frame the tribunal deems necessary.  Next, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (Hamdi and Hamdan sound similar but are two very different cases) the courts struck down a few of Bush's initiatives but upheld many of the other ones.  Afterwards, the MCA was passed (the military commission act) which allows for the Secretary of Defense to decide what is a war crime, it defines conspiracy as a war crime, and suspends habeous corpus for those caught as enemy combatants.  \n\nNow, with all that behind us, the libs feel they are threatened because someone will be showing up to their house and hauling them off to jail.  Not so.  They would have to be involved in conspiracy to commit a terrorist act or to fight against our own troops to be detained.  If this is what they are doing, then yes, they should be upset about these laws.  If they are just a normal American Joe, however, nothing in these laws will EVER affect them.  Its just another way they want to weaken our national security.  Good question
887998
Actually, the bigger problem (assuming your'e talking about the US) is the changes made by the Military Commissions Act.\n\nIt retroactively changes the definition of war crime, so that even if a US official did something that was a felony war crime when the committed it, they cannot be prosecuted now.\n\nIt's like making child molestation no longer illegal, and even if you did it while it was illegal, you cannot be prosecuted anymore.
3556
No.  The International Criminal Court (ICC) tries individuals for war crimes, and therefore the US naturally did not ratify the ICC treaty.  Bill Clinton signed it but did not submit it for ratification; Bush nullified even the signature.  Only countries that have ratified the treaty can have their citizens tried.\n\nSo, the US won't ever have anyone tried for war crimes.
1026040
I think it's been bombed but I pray we get the people who killed the two soldiers.  Don't it make you made that our military gets in trouble if they slap a prisoner but when they capture an American they can do what they want. I say treat them like they would us.....
900346
In Iraq they do.  That was not a U.S. trial.
1143224
I probably would've done the same. \n\nWhat lots of folks don't realize is that we put out a bounty in Afghanistan for terrorists. Think about it. We told a bunch of dirt poor Afghans that we'd pay them in American cash if they fingered Afghan terrorists. Of course they would turn in just about anyone they didn't know or maybe had an on going feud with, Al Qaeda or not.\n\nI'd be willing to bet that lots of Guantanamo "detainees" have been directly involved in terrorist activities, but when you consider all of those imprisoned without cause or evidence, other than the word of another dirt poor and desperate Afghan, it really is disgusting what we've done in Guantanamo. If their is real evidence to hold any of these people it should've been presented prior to their incarceration. After all, that is the American way. Right? \n\nLots of folks are awful pissed about 9/11 and I'm one of them. That doesn't mean we should throw due process, common sense, and our collective sense of humanity out the window in order to conduct another witch trial. In the end we'll lose by showing ourselves to be just as bad as the terrorists responsible for 9/11.
378877
No, this time the enemy will be able to hit American targets, the government will react by ending indivdual's freedoms and then you won't know what you're fighting for again (so in that respect yes).
878329
I am on the side to bring everyone home from Iraq. George Bush has really screwed over the American public with his little power struggle. I want him sent to Iraq to fight his own war He lied to us to get us over there. There are no weapons of mass destruction and he is more guilty of killing people now than Sadam is. Perhaps George Bush should be put on trial now for war crimes to Americans for his lie and Iraq people for all the people that lost their lives just trying to live.
310886
As an American, it disgusts me. Not so much that people who are actually guilty of the crimes for which they have been accused are at Guantanamo, but because of the number of people who i'm sure AREN'T guilty and are being held there, without any charges being brought against them. \n\nI understand that a number of these people are evil. I understand that they want to murder me, and those I love, simply because i'm an American. I understand how horrible it is. But I also understand the nation that our Founding Fathers created. And their reasons for doing so. These men need to be charged, or let go. They should get their day in court. The ones who may NOT be guilty deserve that. \n\nAs an American, I like to look to our Founding Fathers for an example. They are the spirit of the United States of America. These men went to war, a war they knew they could very well die in and lose, for liberty. For freedom. For basic FAIRNESS. They were more afraid of living with no rights, living with injustice then they were of death. \n\nIt makes me ask myself, what's wrong with Americans these days? Are we so afraid of death that we are willing to give up what MAKES us American. just to gain a few more breaths on this Earth? I'm more afraid of what our own government can do if given too much power then I am of what any al qaeda could ever hope to do. A terrorist can kill me, but the loss of our spirit, the spirit of freedom and fairness, would break me.\n\nDeath doesn't scare me as much as the thought of what kind of "America" is going to be left for my daughter, and future grandchildren, if we keep going down this dark road Bush has led us down. History has proven where this road leads. And it isn't to happiness.
491757
no we shouldnt have done it by air, then we would have probs on our own soil.  how would we have gotten saddam to trial by air??  how would we have stabilized their country by air??
191022
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and many other right wing zealots in the U.S. government have conspired to wage an illegal war of aggression against Iraq, kidnap and torture civilians around the world, attack civilians and medical facilities in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. These crimes violate U.S. law, the U.S. Constitution, the Hague and Geneva conventions and other treaties and conventions.\n\nThere is no question that the U.S. is responsible for war crimes, the question is who will stand up to the Bush Adminstration. Who can question the U.S.? No politician will speak out. No court will take the case. No international organization is willing to challenge the U.S. No other nation dares to risk retribution from the U.S. government by even raising the issue.\n\nOnly the people can challenge these crimes. Only by raising a public hue and cry so loud that the issue cannot be politely ignored will this horrific crime spree be stopped.