Former U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate Mike Gravel does not appear to be fading away anytime soon. After Serbian authorities arrested Radovan Karadzvic and arranged for him to be put on trial at The Hague, Gravel responded with an alternative to impeachment for President George Bush.
“An impeachment just means you would only take away his presidency. Well, he is almost done (with) his presidency. What really needs to happen is that these people have to be held accountable for the crimes they have committed,” Gravel said.
Gravel then said Bush should be taken to The Hague and tried for the war crimes of invading Afghanistan and Iraq.
While I’m sure there are a considerable number of people who find pleasure in this thought, war crimes are meant not to be applied to those who have unpopular beliefs, but for the most despicable, genocidal leaders of the world. It needs to be people on the same level as the Nazis or Karadzvic. It must be remembered, Bush did bring the invasion of Iraq to the United Nations. Although the case can be made that Bush administration members misled the world on the facts, there is just as much evidence that they misled themselves into a ill-prepared, foolhardy adventure of bravado and high stupidity. Regarding Afghanistan, it was and remains an international operation. The support for it has traditionally exceeded that for Iraq.
Blowhards like Gravel were cast aside in the Democratic primaries with miniscule support. He should have learned then that few accept what he has to say. He needs to learn to to open his mind and shut his mouth, but that is not an easy lesson for an old politician to learn.
8 users commented in " Gravel: Bush Should Go To Hague "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackAu contraire, there is monumental gobs of evidence that they WILLFULLY FABRICATED evidence. They were shamelessly aware that they were lying and killing for profit.
And Gravel is not a blowhard, no matter how early he was rejected during the primaries. Check his position on all issues before making blanket statements.
“It must be remembered, Bush did bring the invasion of Iraq to the United Nations.”
And failed to convince the Security Council of the need to invade Iraq, so he went in alone except with a few of his friends. The war was illegal in its entirety, being a unilateral war of aggression on a sovereign state.
Other comments are right on. For, yet another angle on these matters folks should watch Vincent Bugliosi’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU&eurl=http://www.facebook.com/home.php?
Furthermore Operation Enduring Freedom wasn’t sanctioned by the UN Security Council either and was launched by the USA with British support on October 07 2001. It wasn’t until December 20 2001 that the UNSC authorised the creation of the International Security Assistance Force whose remit was to assist security operations in Afghanistan. Until October 2003 the ISAF did not operate outside Kabul as was consistent with its mandate.
The Afghanistan operation was initiated by Bush and was continued after the Taliban offered both to put bin Laden on trial as well as hand him over to a third country if given proof of his guilt. Bush’s words regarding this offer when he rejected it make an interesting footnote when applied similarly to the accusations of war-crimes against him.
“There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.”
I agree completely with Mike Gravel. Bush has committed war crimes, or engaged in actions that would be reasonably considered war crimes, in violation of the Geneva Convention and numerous other international treaties, and should be put on trial.
Remember, even though we’re moving away from this principle in America, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and a trial is not an outright demonstrator of guilt. What his administration has done deserves to be reviewed in international court to determine if he is guilty of what he appears to be guilty of - war crimes; waging a war of aggression, torture, and other crimes identified as war crimes by international treaty and convention.
This is not to presume his guilt! But he has been accused of such and appears, by all obvious signs, to have engaged in war crimes! Put him on trial! If he is not guilty, he will not be found guilty. If he is found guilty, he is deserving of whatever sentence he may receive.
Stop presuming that being put on trial is an immediate sign of guilt! Remember our founding principles, innocent until proven guilty. And to determine that guilt, we need a trial.
I forgot to say, accusations of war crimes shouldn’t be reserved only for the “most genocidal” or obviously egregious offenders. Anyone - ANYONE - who appears to have engaged in war crimes should be tried for such. Not just the worst of the worst, but everyone who appears to have committed those offenses. Otherwise, the existence of “war crimes” as a category is pointless.
Bush and Cheney are war criminals. One does not have to do anything more than read the (state-controlled) media reports to recognize this. The problem is, there is no force strong enough to extradite them. I’d like to see either one tour Europe, though.
Defending George Bush is not something I take any comfort in. I consider him the second worst President in U.S. history (behind Buchanan, who let the Civil War develop and did absolutely nothing). His Presidency is an abysmal failure.
I realize that I did not elaborate deeply enough on “bring the invasion of Iraq to the United Nations”. The previous commenters have expanded on that. Their points are well-taken and I agree with many of them.
My point was that, unlike a Karadzvic, who operated completely outside international bodies, Bush did go to the U.N and received some support for his actions. Plus, he did persuade a number of nations to join him, although most did with limited support. Although he choose to twist international law and sanctions into whatever he wanted it to mean and ignored whatever restraints the weak and tepid U.N. placed over his actions, the thought of bringing Bush to The Hague only developed after the Iraq War went badly. Those who said this was a violation of international law were few in 2003. When the world has dealt with other war criminals, their acts have been opposed from the beginning, not years later.
Let us also keep in mind that Bush had widespread support from the American people and Congress to invade Iraq. If Bush is put on trial, the stain of guilt will spread wide. Ignorance is not usually considered a defense for a crime and Congressional support included Democrats and Republicans.
Putting Bush on trial for the Afghanistan invasion will go no where. It can be presented as an act of self-defense by the U.S. Then it had widespread international support and still does. However, he should have stopped there and gone after Bin Laden instead of Saddam Hussein.
Now, torture is an entirely different matter. The Bush administration is in complete violation of every international agreement and covenant on human rights that the U.S. is party too. He can face the proper reprimand inside the United States and hopefully will someday.
Leave A Reply