Will the US ever face a War Crime Tribunal?

No.

Bush was careful to not sign the world court accord.

The last time a US vice president, Aron Burr, faced treason charges he was found innocent...despite the evidence.

Imagine a HYPOTHETICAL case where incontravertible evidence is presented by participants in a renegade US airforce outfit pointing to the office of special orders to destroy our own buildings in NYC...

Do you think a terrorist/treason trial of those respondsible would ever happen?

It would be a miracle for the witnesses to survive long enough to testify, but a Nuremburg II would sure be more fun to watch than shock and awe :bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No because the US was not behind the 9/11 attack. Get help.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

drinker,
a little hazy on the meaning of hypothetical, huh?

Here's another hypothetical situation:
An administration is caught selling weapons to an enemy country, a country that had only recently released numerous american hostages, and using the procedes from the sales to fund a terrorist group plotting to overthrow the government of another country.
Do you think anyone involved would be charged with treason? Would there be impeachment hearings?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Edit: no, this hypothetical is too hypothetical to even entertain. Hypothetically.

 

But from what going around now the U.S. had ignored warings of attack on the U.S.

 

Even in a total 100% not a chance in Hell Hypothetical situation: No.

Certified: We also "ignored" (debatable) warnings of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Look were that got us LOL. Maybe it was a good thing.

 

"Ignored" and "weren't organized in such a way to act on" are two different things. For your position to be correct there would need to be a willful and premeditated ignorance of the pre-9/11 intelligence data, which would implicate the leadership in either allowing or encouraging the attacks to go through.

 

Burr was not found innocent. The argument was whether someone could be convicted of treason who was not actually present when war was levied, and Justice John Marshall, drawing on legal precedents, both in the US and England, from which we took our treason law, said that in the opinion of the court, it had not been successfully established. It was then up to a jury of 14 (12 Republicans and 2 Federalists) to decide. And also the United States was required to produce two witnesses, as required by the Constitution, which they failed to do.

 

He was not found guilty either, come to think of it neither was Spiro Agnew who pleaded nolo contendre.

 

But not because, as you suggest, there was a cover up. Jefferson despised Burr, as did most everyone else, whether they were Republican or Federalist, and had no reason to protect him from prosecution. He was found not guilty simply because a jury of 14 decided the United States didn't make an effective case of proving what treason was, and didn't produce the necessary two witnesses.

 

To sum it up, the USA wont face any kind of tribunal for anything until it loses. Whether or not it deserves to actually face such a tribunal cannot be said just now.

 

What does most of this have to do with whether the U.S. or its citizens will be charged with war crimes? I don't think negligence in response to a threat on one's own country (a different question) is a war crime. I think it's more a question of should American soldiers be charged if they commit inhumane acts on the populace or don't appropriately treat prisoners? Those are actual war crimes.

On that topic, it'd be interesting to see if in one of those hypothetical cases got prosecuted. After all, I don't remember if the Bush Administration's pleas for immunity for whatever potential acts they commit in Iraq ever got accepted.

 

Well you are right that real life negligence is not treason. The hypothetical however involved incontravertable proof of a pearl harbor event commited by Americans. I have 3 documents written by Rumsfeld that involves his stating that a Pearl Harbor event is a necessary ingredient to spend and deply some of the far reaching defense plans of his. Certainly troubling when one takes into account the Special Orders Office he set up in the Pentagon which was entirely removed from any Pentagon chain of command - but it is certainly not proof of treason.

The absense of proof for his side of the story is not proof of the opposite.
No if such a desperate scenario existed that was even close to the hypotheitical then it would take extraordinarily brave Constitutional patriots to come forward with evidence.

 

War crimes trials are only applicable if a war crime was committed, that is not the case here. Sounds as if you are really looking for a conspiracy theory, been hanging out with Dean and Co.?

 

What we're talking about is whether if and when a war crime were to be commited, what safeguards are in place to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice? I don't see any actual accusations of war crimes on this thread.

 

>> War crimes trials are only applicable if a war crime was committed

Is attacking, INVADING, two countries to STEAL their OIL, considered a war crime, in this point in history ???

Killing innocent people IMO is criminal equivalent to murder...

Britian, the USA and Australia, MUST be taken to the World Court....
Can the displaced people, their destroyed lived, their murdered kin... can they ever be compensated ???

 

1. America definitly did not make a profit on the war.
2. You say steal like they had a bunch of oil barrels sitting around and we came along, drug them to cargo ships, and dragged them home with us. In fact, if we want any oil, we would have had to pay workers to get it out of the ground or we would have to buy it. Either way, it dosn't seem like stealing. Anyway, its moot because we are giving the country to its people.
3. For Afganastan, I am sure you were trying to say "to STEAL their GOATS". Yeah, "NO BLOOD FOR GOATS".

1. I don't think there is a single war in the history of man that hasn't had a few innocent deaths.
2. Murder generally means you killed an innocent knowingly. In this case it would be manslaughter or negligent homicide charges at most, though I am sure those wouldn't stick.
3. Saddam or the Taliban would have wracked up even more deaths if you gave him time.


Jeeze... I think I should just save my arguements to file and just copy them to the forum. It would save me time as I seem to have to repost them in response to something every single time I log on.

 

>> You say steal like they had a bunch of oil barrels sitting around and we came along, drug them to cargo ships, and dragged them home with us.

Tankers end to end moving out of Iraq... profiteers charging huge excesses...
What is the price of a barrel of crude today ? why???

>>> 3. For Afganastan, I am sure you were trying to say "to STEAL their GOATS". Yeah, "NO BLOOD FOR GOATS".

Oil pipe line mate.



Well oil should be banned IMO... it is bringing on the destruction of life as we know it, because it is upsetting the hydrology cycle of this planet.

Clockwork, I am sure we are all kept in the dark... What is the truth?????

All I know invasion of a NON AGGRESSIVE country in today's world is a crime against humanity.

>> Saddam or the Taliban would have wracked up even more deaths if you gave him time.

Saddam, no WMD, Taliban ?? what were they doing wrong..
Are not people allowed to be different in their own country ???

Now if your President, Clockwork, did not have oil up to his elbows, I may agree somewhat.... but... the evidence is toooooooooooooooooo sticky

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My bad. Inciting wars of aggression are bona fide war crimes. In which case . . . there's a case to be made.

 

Haha, no, of course not! And a decade and a half later another conservative moron can run on the platform that he's just like this guy! Regan was a great man, he talked big and pounded his chest and made the commies scared! Now Bush is in office and he definitely seems like an alpha male with all the shouting and chest pounding and nation invading! My president could kick your president's ass!

I'm pretty sure that mountain gorillas would vote Republican. . . well if Sean Hanity is any indicator they already do.