Posted on 11/10/2011 9:51:58 AM PST by american_steve
Ralph Nader and the Center for Study of Responsive Law’s “Debating Taboos” series continues Friday, November 18 with “Bush/Obama: War Crimes or Lawful Wars?”
The debate format consists of two moderators and four debaters. Arguing against the proposition that Bush and Obama engaged in war crimes are attorneys David Rivkin and Lee Casey. Rivkin served in the Department of Justice under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and is renowned for articulate commentary on the U.S. Constitution and presidential war powers. Casey, Rivkin’s frequent collaborator, also served in the DOJ under Reagan and H.W. Bush, and currently specializes in compliance issues under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), U.S. trade sanctions regimes, and federal ethics requirements. He has also served on the United Nations Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
Arguing for the proposition that Bush and Obama engaged in war crimes are attorney and constitutional scholar Bruce Fein and retired Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer.
Ralph Nader, who founded the Center for Study of Responsive Law in 1968, has gone on record that Bush and Obama are war criminals for their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(Excerpt) Read more at officialwire.com ...
I say no. Helmut Kohl might be, though.
Ralph Nader is still around?
If so, why has he not gone after the Nissan Leaf? It is my understanding that a home charging station, while charging up the Leaf, overheated and caused a home fire, some $800,000 in damage and resulting in minor injuries to two people. He had no hesitation at all going after the Cevrolet Corvair back in the early 1960’s, and today he would not go after the Chevrolet Volt, which uses a similar home charging system?
Ah, the duplicity. One wonders at Nader’s dedication to the truth, or even if he is on speaking terms with truth in any form.
Bush - NO
Obozo - Perhaps, given that the number of American soldiers who have been killed in action in Afghanistan during Obozo’s reign (of terror) is considerably higher in less than 4 years than the total killed when Bush was CinC over the course of nearly 8 years. The current rules of engagement in Afghanistan has hamstrung our troops, and has gotten many killed.
Obummer is, the events under bush were authorized by congress, the murder obummer committed in Libya was not. So yes, obummer should be tried and walked to the chair.
Bush- No!
OWeedHoppula- Hell Yes!!
Based on what I currently know about the actions of each of them in the prosecution of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, my answer is as follows:
Bush - No
Obama - Not yet.
There is no such thing as a war criminal. “International Law” is bullshit. You can argue the wars are unconstitutional, but you lose me when you site international law. When the military allows our first president, be it a Ronald Reagan or a Barack Obama, to the Hague, the United States of America is officially done.
Bush, no. Obama, yes.
Obama never bothered to consult congress before getting into the war in Libya, a war for which he had no legitimate excuse. Nor did he ever bother to seek congressional approval afterward. Bush explained what he intended to do for months, and received congressional approval from most Democrats as well as Republicans.
Instead, Obama consulted nobody, explained nothing, and left it vague who was running the war. NATO, apparently. And he left vague who was supplying the weapons or paying for it. We still don’t really know who was flying those planes or who paid the bills.
Terrorist revolutionaries were enabled to assassinate a legitimate head of government—under the pretence that we were establishing a “no fly zone,” of all things. And far more innocent civilians, bystanders, and black Africans died than would have if Kaddafi had been left to crush the revolt on his own, as he was about to do. Schools and hospitals were bombed, women and children killed.
The usual justification of war is national interest or self defense. This war went against both. We were far better off with Kaddafi in charge than a gang of Islamist terrorists eager to establish sharia law and kill infidels. Clinton did the same damned thing in Kosovo, but at least he consulted congress, and the weak-spined RINOs caved.
What, no mention of Clinton’s boobing of civilian trains & TV stations of a country that never lifted one finger against us?
Good point.
Wrong - wrong on the face of it.
There are any number of actions which can be broken under mutually ratified treaties that constitute “war crimes.”
“International Law” is bullshit...
Perhaps, but we have ratified quite a bit of it from the WTO to hundred of other treaties that compromise that which is spoken of here.
Now, trying to indict one of our leaders in a European court may be nonsense, but, that notwithstanding, war crimes and International Law do, in fact, exist
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.