Did Hemba directly order war crimes with intent?

Did Bush directly order war crimes with intent?

Can you prove this in a court of law?

Part of the American fear for international courts, I’m sure, are judges from France, Russia or China who will be less than impartial with the American president.

If anything is ridiculous about the whole thing, it’s the military tribunals presiding over Guantanamo prisoners, and I’m glad that the whole thing is being torn apart by the Supreme court, and I am also glad that both McCain and Obama are in favour of shutting the place down.

For lack of better words, if you’re part of the american government, you’re damned if you do and damned if you dont. I feel as if they’ve dug their own hole so deep trying to justify their self-image that they can never get out of it barring any major catastrophe that would completely destroy the political structure and force a reformation. But I somehow doubt that will happen in my time.

You’re right Matt, that was uncalled for and I apologize. I was the recipient of a number of deletions a few years ago on the old mblog, and made the unwarranted assumption that this was the present case as well.

To T-Lee, it appears the post has been lost. It’s not up and I doubt it remains in the moderation queue.

I did not use profanity nor was I rude.[/quote]

Sorry, I’m not sure what happened, then… your comment possibly went into moderation then it was later posted…. patience my friend, patience.

Actually, the Bush administration did knowingly mislead the American people, and that has recently been confirmed by a Senate report. Also pretty damning is the Downing Street Memo.

And Matt’s right by the way, hegemonic aspirations were definitely involved. The neocons (Wolfowitz, Pearl, Bolton, Kristol, et al) had designs on hegemony at least as far back as 1992. And they wanted to go into Iraq very, very badly.

I did not use profanity nor was I rude.

hmmm, what to do what to do… … eat a watermelon or buy an iphone… hmmmmmmm

oops, sorry, what was the question?

Thank Goodness for Freedom of Speech, eh!

Sigh….some things never change.

As far as I can tell you have only to look to the Project for a New American Century, and the Wolfowitz doctrine to find the reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, that being, Western democracy in Iraq under the leadership of the United States, which would stand as a challenge to the likes of radical Islam. The invasion and occupation of Iraq may be a botched job, and downright misguided, but I do not believe that the intentions behind it were unethical.

I don’t think that Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al were consciously intent on doing ‘evil’ when they created the rationale for the invasion of Iraq. It is my belief that they felt that American interest, whatever that rightly or wrongly was defined to be, was best served by the invasion, and justified by it. IOW, the transgression of said declaration, not to mention the various Security Council resolutions at the time, was a just action in their collective minds.

That’s a scary thing to hold such high positions within a country, you would believe that they would at least think about the consequences behind their decisions, for the future of their country. When you send hundreds of thousands of troops to another country carring their own weapons of mass destruction, what exactly was their intention? In the end, no one wins. It’s evil vs. evil over there. As its been said “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.

In the end all the fish will be killed and all that will be left is the Sharks. Soon enough though they will get hungry and feed upon each other.

And the entry is entirely about the inability to bind such powers to any realistic sense of just responsibility, so that’s a moot point.[/quote]

There is no real way to bind the Project for the New American Centur….er….the President of the United States and the former Secretary of Defense as two examples, to current international law. I concede without argument, and recognize that that was indeed the substance of your entry.

But what I was trying to identify for you, what you’re describing as ‘moot’, is really the fundamental underlying issue - the one that is causal to the deeds you’re calling them to account for.