Posted on 03/19/2013 6:12:16 PM PDT by Kaslin
A CNN headline during Tuesday's 11 a.m. hour of Newsroom asked, "Should Bush officials be tried for war crimes?" CNN legal analyst Lisa Bloom argued that the U.S. should submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the mass murder of Iraqis that far exceeded the 9/11 atrocities.
Bloom downplayed the 9/11 terror attacks in the face of the Iraq War. When anchor Ashleigh Banfield noted that America responded to 9/11 with force and not in a "sanguine" manner, Bloom compared it to the Iraqi casualty count: "And that was 4,000, not 100,000, not 10 years." [Video below the break. Audio here.]
CNN Asks If Bush Officials Should Be Tried for War Crimes
Bloom added this gem about Bush being held accountable for "murdering" Iraqis: "if someone invaded our country based on false premises and murdered 100,000 to a million of our people, as we are accused of doing in Iraq, depending on whose estimate you believe, would we be so sanguine? Would we be so forgiving? Or would we demand some accountability?"
Anchor Ashleigh Banfield lended to Bloom's cause: "And we didn't go to court, we want to war. We didn't go to court," she remarked.
Yet Bloom was so far out in left field, the liberal Banfield sounded rational giving the argument for not tangling with the ICC. Bloom responded, "But isn't that interesting, because if we want others to be held accountable for war crimes, why shouldn't we accept jurisdiction of the same court?"
Only at the very end of the segment did Banfield nix the prospect of a trial: "I think it's also critical to say to our audience that the International Criminal Court can prosecute for genocide, for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, but this incursion, this action in Iraq is actually qualified as a crime of aggression, and that that doesn't come – that's not covered."
Bloom has jumped off the deep end before, once implying that supporters of Proposition 8 were "lunatic-fringe bigots" and in a 2008 CBS report on police brutality, comparing police officers to murder convicts and suspects.
During Tuesday's segment, she also compared the deaths in Iraq to U.S. atrocities in Vietnam:
"In Vietnam, there is an American war crimes museum, where you can look at all of the terrible things that the United States did, like dropping Agent Orange in Vietnam. There are many countries in the world where we are not welcomed. We are not seen as this wonderful, wonderful force. And I want to emphasize Americans are welcomed in Vietnam, but what we did there is remembered and it's acknowledged. And I think the same thing is going to happen in Iraq."
A transcript of the segment, which aired on CNN Newsroom on March 19 at 11:36 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
[11:36]ASHLEIGH BANFIELD: The Bush administration went to war in Iraq 10 years ago today for two main reasons.
[HEADLINE: "Legacy of Iraq War: Should Bush officials be tried for war crimes?"]
BANFIELD: They claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and could possibly use them against the United States, and that Saddam Hussein was involved with al Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks. Well, today, we know both of those claims proved to be false. Since the war, there have been demands that Mr. Bush and members of his administration, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and former CIA director George Tenet, be tried for war crimes. But can they be or should they be? There is one very famous man who says yes. Bishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, and the Anglican Church Archbishop of South Africa says they should, they should be tried. Our legal analyst Lisa Bloom, here in New York with me, is an expert on the International Criminal Court. There are so many issues, Lisa, when it comes to this kind of a thing. It is a sticky issue, it is a difficult issue, but a lot of people think why hasn't there been any litigation?
LISA BLOOM, CNN legal analyst: And when you think about it more broadly, there have been a number of world leaders who have been prosecuted in international criminal courts. In South Africa, which of course had the Apartheid regime for many, many years, a brutal regime responsible for the deaths of many of its own people, no one was prosecuted, ironically. In fact, they had the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which encouraged everybody, essentially, to talk to each other in commissions, acknowledge responsibility, and forgive. And yet Bishop Tutu, as you say, a very respected world leader, is now calling on President Bush to be prosecuted.
BANFIELD: So we are not signatories here in the United States of the International Criminal Court, and for good reason, Americans don't want to be prosecuted in criminal court.
(Crosstalk)
BANFIELD: We don't want our soldiers hauled off of battlefields and thrown into international criminal courts.
BLOOM: But isn't that interesting, because if we want others to be held accountable for war crimes, why shouldn't we accept jurisdiction of the same court?
BANFIELD: Let me ask you this, too. Isn't it a fair defense to say, it was a mistake? It was not intentional, it was not reckless. It was not -- aren't these fair defenses, if this were, in fact, the case?
BLOOM: Think of it this way, if someone invaded our country based on false premises and murdered 100,000 to a million of our people, as we are accused of doing in Iraq, depending on whose estimate you believe, would we be so sanguine? Would we be so forgiving? Or would we demand some accountability –
BANFIELD: Well, someone did come to our country and murder 4,000 people on September 11, and we weren't sanguine about it. We were very offended by it.
BLOOM: And that was 4,000, not 100,000, not 10 years, and not –
(Crosstalk)
BANFIELD: And we didn't go to court, we want to war. We didn't go to court.
BLOOM: That's right. And not under the aegis of a foreign government. So I just returned from a trip to Vietnam. In Vietnam, there is an American war crimes museum, where you can look at all of the terrible things that the United States did, like dropping Agent Orange in Vietnam. There are many countries in the world where we are not welcomed. We are not seen as this wonderful, wonderful force. And I want to emphasize Americans are welcomed in Vietnam, but what we did there is remembered and it's acknowledged. And I think the same thing is going to happen in Iraq.
BANFIELD: I think it's also critical to say to our audience that the International Criminal Court can prosecute for genocide, for war crimes, for crimes against humanity, but this incursion, this action in Iraq is actually qualified as a crime of aggression, and that that doesn't come – that's not covered. So unfortunately, it just can't be. I have to leave it there, but it is such a somber occasion. And I'm glad you were here to mark it on the legal side of it all. Lisa Bloom, thank you.
Hey Lisa! Why don’t you get your pals on your “International” Clown Court to come over here and try to take them! A lot of Americans have purchased some new firearms since Barry got “elected” that we’d love to try out. Have them bring the UN powder blue helmet boys with them.
Please don’t bring the bluehats. I would hate to have to kill a bunch of rapist. Would take a long time to bury that many bodies and it might stink to much.
Also we should try Clinton for the 23 tomahawks he shot at Iraq.
well- if Bush should be tried for war crimes shouldn’t the LBJ trial for war crimes be on the docket first??? i mean LBJ’s lies are well documented- the “lies” of George Bush are a stretch at best....
No problem,we got extra buzzards here in Texas...
I seem to recall fighter jet parts from France with date stamps of 2002. I also recall Sadam playing the shell game everytime we tried to inspect suspected areas.
The “100,000 to a million” dead Iraqis gets bandied about a lot. What’s never mentioned is the breakdown: 1. How many of those were “innocent civilians” vs. enemy combatants and their supporters; 2. How many were actually killed by the terrorists, vs. coalition of the willing forces.
To imply, much less state, that the deaths were all due to the U.S. is an outright lie.
didn’t CNN defend a couple of rapists a few days ago?
It sure is
If there have been 100,000 killed in Iraq since we arrived there, I can guaran-damn-tee you they weren’t all killed by Allied or American forces. The majority of innocent Iraqis were killed by the IEDs, car bombs, and devices placed in markets and other crowded sites in the country. It was the terrorists (I won’t call them insurgents, because so many of them were from outside Iraq, and were recruited to come into the country to fight the “Great Satan”) who targeted innocents as well as Allied and American military forces, and caused the deaths of the vast majority of the civilians killed in the past 10 years.
‘If anybody should be tried for crimes It’s Obama!!!’
Only the Drone Gnome knows for sure.
Well what do you expect? Look who her mother is
You said it
Yeah right, if you believe that, then I have some ocean front property in Tennessee to sell to you
More importantly, was there any mention about how there are other terrorist groups in the world besides Al-Qaeda, and Hussein's government was providing safe havens for some of their leaders?
How Hussein had violated over a dozen UN Security Council resolutions ... including a cease fire?
Did this alleged "legal expert" at CNN mention that under international law, when one party to a cease fire violates its terms, other parties may proceed with military action against the offending party because the cease fire no longer exists?
I doubt it. Bush-loathing left-wingers in the news media establishment always prefer to make low information voters believe that the Iraq War was completely unprovoked.
Now we KNOW Middle Eastern money is subverting our media. It's obvious. Media run and staffed by Americans would never ask such a treasonous question.
No, this is just standard loathing and contempt for Bush by the left-wing news media establishment. Obama could bomb the hell out of ten different Muslim countries and CNN would urge him to bomb ten more. After all, he's a Democratso he;s allowed to do whatever he wants.
ELSIE argues that the U.S. WILL submit to the jurisdiction of the The LORD GOD eternal for the mass murder of unborn Americans that exceed the 9/11 atrocities EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR!
I did not realize that she is Gloria Allred’s daughter!
Tree —> Apple
It’s time to stop playing nice:
Back atchaya, CNN:
Should the traitor commie bitch Lisa Bloom be dragged into the street and hanged from a lamppost for treason?
Again with this crap? What about all the weird stuff James K. Polk pulled? Surely, we haven’t addressed those points enough.
Obama's drone strikes have killed a lot of innocent bystanders, but no one is saying that Obama or his advisors should be tried for war crimes. It's possible that he has caused more deaths of innocent civilians than the US did in accidental killings in Iraq.
Given Saddam's record, if the US had not invaded, probably a larger number of Iraqis would have been killed at the hands of the regime in the last ten years than died by all the violence since the invasion. The left never brings that into the equation.
The biggest unknown is whether Saddam would have managed to develop atomic bombs--if he had the death toll surely would have been vastly higher than it has been since 3/19/2003.
Bush's false premisses were two--that there were large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that the Iraqis were capable of forming and running a decent government if given a chance. The latter was just wishful thinking...like Woodrow Wilson thinking he could make the world safe for democracy.
Still, since the Obama administration and its lackeys in the media call the war in Iraq "Bush's war..." let's look at the record.
War of 1812--started by James Madison, Democrat.
Mexican War--started by James K. Polk, Democrat.
Civil War--started by Jefferson Davis, Democrat.
WWI--started by Woodrow Wilson, Democrat.
WWII--I'll give FDR a pass because the enemy declared war on us first.
Korean War--Harry S. Truman, Democrat.
Vietnam War--LBJ, Democrat.
On the other side:
Spanish-American War, William McKinley, Republican
Gulf War--George H. W. Bush, Repubican
Afghanistan War--George W. Bush, Republican
Iraq War--George W. Bush, Republican.
In Truman's war alone more American died than in all the wars started under Republican Presidents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.