What are War Crimes?

This post was written by marc on July 1, 2004
Posted Under: Bush,Politics

Here’s a little something I snagged off of CBS News – what are War Crimes? Their story is in reference to Saddam – but look at the list and see how many of these apply to Bush. Look to me like Bush has committed most of these crimes himself. No wonder Bush was so interested in trying to get the US to pass a resolution excusing Americans of War Crimes in Iraq. Glad they didn’t pass that! Now Bush might some day be put on trial for his criminal acts.

Saddan is a bad man and deserves to be pout on trial. Bush is far worse and is the most dangerous terrorist on the planet.

The following definitions of these crimes were taken from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:

This crime occurs when “the perpetrator killed one or more persons” who “belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group,” if the perpetrator “intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

Genocide can involve any of the following acts: killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births, by forcibly transferring children.

Crime Against Humanity

This crime involves conduct that “was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.” The possible elements of crimes against humanity are:

  • apartheid
  • deportation or forcible transfer of population
  • enforced disappearance of persons
  • enforced sterilization
  • enslavement
  • extermination
  • forced pregnancy
  • imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty (Abu Ghraib – Guantanamo Bay Cuba)
  • murder (Abu Ghraib)
  • persecution (Abu Ghraib)
  • rape (Abu Ghraib)
  • sexual slavery or enforced prostitution (Abu Ghraib)
  • sexual violence (Abu Ghraib)
  • torture (Abu Ghraib – Guantanamo Bay Cuba)

War Crimes

War crimes cover offenses against soldiers as well as civilians that take place in the context of armed conflict. In addition to the elements listed under crimes against humanity, the possible elements of war crimes are:

  • attacking civilian objects (Fake War with Iraq)
  • attacking civilians (Fake War with Iraq)
  • attacking objects or persons using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions
  • attacking personnel or objects involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission
  • attacking protected objects
  • attacking undefended places (Fake War with Iraq)
  • biological experiments
  • compelling participation in military operations (Fake War with Iraq)
  • compelling service in hostile forces (Fake War with Iraq)
  • cruel treatment(Abu Ghraib- Guantanamo Bay Cuba)
  • denying a fair trial(Guantanamo Bay Cuba – Patriot Act)
  • denying quarter
  • depriving the nationals of the hostile power of rights or actions (Fake War with Iraq)
  • destroying or seizing the enemy¬ís property (Fake War with Iraq)
  • destruction and appropriation of property (Fake War with Iraq)
  • displacing civilians (Fake War with Iraq)
  • employing poison or poisoned weapons
  • employing prohibited bullets (Uranium Shells)
  • employing prohibited gases, liquids, materials or devices (Uranuim Shells)
  • employing weapons, projectiles or materials or methods of warfare listed in the Annex to the Statute
  • excessive incidental death, injury, or damage (Fake War with Iraq)
  • improper use of a flag of truce (Tricked into disarming – then attacked)
  • improper use of a flag, insignia or uniform of the United Nations (Falsely Claims Justification by UN Resolution)
  • improper use of a flag, insignia or uniform of the hostile party
  • inhuman treatment (Abu Ghraib – Guantanamo Bay Cuba)
  • killing or wounding a person hors de combat
  • medical or scientific experiments
  • murder (Abu Ghraib)
  • mutilation (Abu Ghraib)
  • outrages upon personal dignity (Abu Ghraib)
  • pillaging (Fake War with Iraq)
  • sentencing or execution without due process (Fake War with Iraq)
  • starvation as a method of warfare (Fake War with Iraq)
  • taking hostages
  • treacherously killing or wounding (Fake War with Iraq)
  • unlawful confinement (Guantanamo Bay Cuba- Abu Ghraib)
  • unlawful deportation and transfer (Guantanamo Bay Cuba – Patriot Act)
  • using protected persons as shields
  • using, conscripting and enlisting children
  • willfully causing great suffering (Abu Ghraib)
  • willful killing (Abu Ghraib)

Reader Comments

It is a nice dream. Too bad the Repugnicants control all the levers of powere right now…

Maybe in a few years we can get some charges brought up in the International Criminal Court – once the Torturer in Chief gets tossed out on his thieving, lying ass…

Written By (: Tom :) on July 1st, 2004 @ 7:27 am

Well, get ready for the show trial of the century. Stalin’s show trials of 1936, 37,38 will pale by comparison. The purpose of this trial is to get peoples’ minds of Abu Graib and Michael Moore’s film 9/11.

Written By richard on July 1st, 2004 @ 7:43 am

To put Hitler and Rommell…erm, sorry: Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney on trial the rest of the world may have to do to the United States what the United States did to get Saddam (sure hope it doesn’t come to that).

Written By Shadow Hawk on July 1st, 2004 @ 8:31 am

“The purpose of this trial is to get peoples’ minds of Abu Graib and Michael Moore’s film 9/11.”

Yeah, not like Saddam actually *did* anything to the Iraqi people. Besides, Saddam’s trial might not take place until 2005.

Written By MadBlue on July 1st, 2004 @ 9:53 am

Regardless of what Sadam did, it won’t be a fair trial. He’s already been found guilty by the very same people who appointed those who would judge him. I am not justifying sadam’s actions. i am just saying that it will not be a fair trial. now, do you think the current administration would get a fair trial if they ever get ‘caught’? bush removed us from the ICC, so now what? this administration are such hypochristians. practice what you preach! is that what good christians do? they all need a reality check. a church of reality check, that is!

Written By charlie chingas on July 1st, 2004 @ 9:59 am

“regardless of what Saddam did”…?!?! Saddam is being tried for what he did to the Iraqi people and the Kurds, not the USA. Believe you me, the US doesn’t have to list Saddam’s crimes to the Iraqis, handpicked or not.

Yeah, Poor Saddam. How about “poor pickpocket getting his hands cut off in Saudi Arabia”? How about “poor woman caught in adultery being stoned to death in Iran”? How about “poor gum-chewer being caned in Singapore”? What, suddenly when a foreign country judges and sentences someone according to the laws of their country, we should blame it all on Bush?

Poor Mussolini. Poor Marie Antoinette. Poor Julius Caesar. I’m sure Bush has a time machine stashed away somewhere – it’s the only way to explain why any country would have any ire against its rulers.

Written By MadBlue on July 1st, 2004 @ 11:24 am

I knew someone would reply almost instantly. They would read my first sentence, then jumble through the rest, still fuming about those first few words. sign of an impulsive person. now, replace saddam with bush. still feel the same? my point is, it really doesn’t matter what these high profile cases have done. they have already been judged. would they receive a fair trial? now, what if bush and gang were on trial? would they be innocent until proven guilty? of course. shouldn’t saddam deserve the same curtisy? after all, we are spreading our version of democracy, right? innocent until proven guilty, unless you’re a foreigner, democrat, liberal, woman. if i were to get charged with something, i would be already assumed to be quilty because i am mexican. no, i’ve never been arrested, but i have been treated like shit because of my nationality.

Written By charlie chingas on July 1st, 2004 @ 11:36 am

OK wuts if he did all of that shit? that was his country and his people, and at any point they could have risen up and revolted, but they didnt, and before you say they were scared as shit, i dont call fucking shi’its with rpg’s and ak’s out the ass scared of anything.
everyone in this world is goin to relize having saddam over there in power kept everything at peace, because he used force over those radical muslims, and if you dont believe me then why the fuck have there been more attacks after his defeat then before it, he used peace threw power and thats the only way to get it threw those skulls of terrorists and iraqi gangs. NO MATTER WHAT WE DO NOW there will always be attackts over there at random and there will it will turn into another isreal

Written By Joshua Gillogly on July 1st, 2004 @ 12:58 pm

War to get Bush put on trial? Pfffffft. All youd need to do is leave a trail of oil leading to a cage. You know they need all this oil for lube at their insane demonic orgy rituals.

PS-Dont bother sending hate mail cos my regular box posted is full.

Written By SuprShite on July 1st, 2004 @ 2:16 pm

Now, my question is: will synthetic oil work just as good for bait? And if so, do they prefer penzoil or mobil?

Written By charlie chingas on July 1st, 2004 @ 2:30 pm

charlie chingas, I didn’t “jumble through the rest”. I didn’t think a response was necessary.

Saddam Hussein had 40 of his own relatives (including his sons-in law) murdered. Anyone who opposed Saddam’s dictatorship was tortured and killed (radical Shi’ite and otherwise – mostly otherwise). Saddam often carried out executions himself. If Saddam’s trial is “unfair” it’s because the enormity of his actions are so well-known, there’s no doubt of his culpability. It’s the very atrocities that Saddam committed and the fear they generated that kept Saddam in power for 20 years.

Now, just replace “Saddam” with “Bush” and see what you can come up with. It’s apples and oranges. It has nothing to do with Saddam not being a White conservative male American.

Saddam is, however, going to have a defense team (as did Milosevic when he was on trial).

Written By MadBlue on July 1st, 2004 @ 8:59 pm

The US isn’t a part of the IJC because the IJC is a fucking joke. Under the UN, Milosevic could have faced a MAXIMUM of 20 years. If he lives to 79–and he very well might, with the cushy conditions and good doctors of the UN–he walks free. Saddam doesn’t deserve a fair trial–he deserves to be beat to death with a shovel.

Written By Mance on July 1st, 2004 @ 10:17 pm

Mance, I think most of the Iraqi people would agree with you about what should be done with Saddam. Certainly Saddam himself has done far worse to people who have done far less than he has.

Of course he’ll be found guilty and probably executed anyway, but the fact that Saddam’s getting a trial at all, instead of being immediately hanged from a gallows, says something about the fairness of the new Iraqi government.

I’m not a Bush supporter (didn’t vote for him, don’t like his policies much), but I hope history will look back on what we accomplished in Iraq as a good thing.

I asked a liberal friend of mine “which would you prefer, a successful democracy in Iraq, America salvage its reputation abroad and Bush get re-elected or continuous war in Iraq, the world’s opinion of America plummet lower and Bush not get re-elected”. He said “the latter”. I’ve heard the same people who complain that the US Military trivializes civilian deaths say “I hope terrorists attack stronger and harder after the handover. That’ll show Bush”. I just can’t wrap my head around that sort of sentiment.

Written By MadBlue on July 2nd, 2004 @ 12:24 am

I dont think he has to worry about terrorist attacking harder next time? since it will happen, since this war on terror died a year ago, and it doesn’t seem like anyone cares about bin laden anymore.

And before you bs me on us still having troops over in afgan, you can shove a can opener up your ass, because if it took us 300 days to find sadam after the war on iraq it shouldnt have taken us 1000 days to find bin laden, with all the troops with have this war on iraq crap, we could have found bin laden by now.

Saddam hussian was a unmoral and wrong man, yes, but it takes terror to fight terror, and thats what he did, he knew his ppl hated him, and if they really wanted him gone they could have done it themselves. Saddam kept the piece over there, but threw violent means, because thats the only way to get it threw to islamic fundmentalists.

Written By Joshua GIllogly on July 2nd, 2004 @ 5:00 am

Then you have the factor of the Saddam regime being Arab and muslim as well in the apparent stability of the nation before the invasion.

Written By Shadow Hawk on July 2nd, 2004 @ 8:46 am

It should be noted that Sen. Kerry should see this site. Maybe they can contact some people that could make some static in the senate,& con-
gress, or what ever it takes. It’s worth a try. Any thing to get rid of asswipe and this 1600 crew that now live’s in our house. Just a thought.

Written By Don on July 2nd, 2004 @ 6:37 pm

Free Saddam!Free Saddam! Just joking
I for got history, why did America went to war with Ira the first place? I mean Gulf War. I know Iraq invaded Kuwait,but i dont get it why America was envolved in that?
OK. Now the same question about this war. Why did America attack Iraq? Hmm Saddam didnt even help fund Al-Qaeda. Osama has Billions of dollars. Why Iraq? As Marc himself said, 15 hijackers where from Saudi Arabia. Yes Saddam is a bad man, killed his own people, but thats his own country, he can do what ever he wants. Yes UN has to do something but not US. I still think the Torture of Iraqis is by far worser than fake ass beheading. Like someone else said “would you rather be beahed and die or get beat and raped to death?”. Well first of all i think Al-Qaeda attacked US not just for nothing. US supports the Jews….I mean Israel. As long as the state of Israel exis, we wount’s see peace. I dont really think there will be peace. Peace is not fun for terrorists.
It would be awsome if someone sends this web site to the Goverment and to all people in USA.

Written By Dmitri on July 3rd, 2004 @ 10:00 am

In response to Dmitri:

Not to be a complete booger and on July 4th and all, but I would much rather go a few rounds in a sick game of naked twister than have my head cut off. Have a great day.

Written By yes im coo coo on July 4th, 2004 @ 3:33 am

“shove a can opener up your ass”? Are you sure you don’t work at Abu Ghraib?

I don’t understand how you can say on the one hand that Saddam’s violent means kept militant Islamic fundamentalists in check, yet say on the other hand that if the Iraqi people wanted him gone, they could have done it themselves. It doesn’t work that way. Saddam’s violent means weren’t restricted to nullifying radical elements.

It’s going to take time and effort, but Iraq will re-stabilize.

Anyway, as far as Bin Laden is concerned, I don’t think anyone would be surprised if it’s announced around October that we’ve caught him.

Written By MadBlue on July 5th, 2004 @ 6:42 pm

wtf are you talkin about, the u.s. has no means to capture osama, george has loose oil connections with the bin ladens, and im talking about he kept the religions down to a safe check, and he kept fear in ppl, FEAR is not a person, place or thing, so it can easly be surpased, saying if the ppl really wanted him gone fear wouldnt have stoped them.

Written By Joshua Gillogly on July 6th, 2004 @ 6:50 pm

It is precisely because fear is NOT a person, place or thing that it CAN’T be easily surpassed.

Fear, anger, ignorance. These things are not easily surpassed.

Written By MadBlue on July 7th, 2004 @ 1:49 am

That should have been “fear, HATRED and ignorance”…

Written By MadBlue on July 7th, 2004 @ 2:00 am

yes they can be surpased, if they can’t be surpased then it would be hard to walk up and down the streets of america because of the zelous news media and how the wanna raise and lower the stupid color bar. How do you think republicans try to stay in power, FEAR and we can vote them out? If a million chinese people fight for democracy and all die from it they most of conquered fear in the name of good.

Written By joshua gillogly on July 7th, 2004 @ 4:48 am

I said they are not easily surpassed, not that they can’t be surpassed.

The Tiananmen Square protests took an amount of courage citizens of a democratic country can’t even begin to imagine. It was not easy to fight to overcome that fear. In the end it resulted in the massacre of some two thousand civilians, and another seven to ten thousand wounded (not all one million protesters were killed), but it posed the Chinese government with issues it couldn’t ignore. It amounted to something.

In Saddam’s Iraq, if one million people would have protested, they would have all been hunted down, along with their families, and the issue would have been swept under the rug. It was only been after the invasion that we found the mass graves and the horrors visited on those who disagreed with Saddam Hussein’s policies.

Americans can walk around without fear because we’re secure in our freedom. Yeah, some random crazy bastard might pull a gun, but we can feel pretty secure in the fact that Bush isn’t going to have the military break your arms and legs, or put you into an industrial plastic shredder, feet-first, for disagreeing with his policies. We don’t have that kind of fear to surpass. If we don’t like Bush’s policies, we can vote him out.

You may be right about fear being a factor in voting conservative, though. When a people feel the enemy is at the gates, they’re going to look to a leader who they feel is going to be able to best protect them, and very often that means someone who is more conservative in his approach.

The current administration may be hyping the threat of terrorism and acting like only a conservative president will be firm enough to counter terrorism, but the truth of the matter is that the threat of terrorism IS a real thing, and a number of plots HAVE been foiled by being vigilant. That being said, though, I don’t think America would become less safe if Kerry is elected.

Written By MadBlue on July 7th, 2004 @ 6:16 am

We hate Bush, we want abuse justified, 911 uncovered, videos solved. We are not Anti Americans. Farenheit 911 is for the dumb minds that take in anything higher level people say. I like one part about what Moor said on some news chanel. He asked “You did a poor job reporting 911 and other stuff” i dont remember what he said word by word but it was on the Daily Show. Does anyone know where i can find the New Jersey guy being prisoned by Al-Qaeda and the Filipino hostage Angelo de la Cruz video. Those videos are very suspicious. Two video have orange suits, NJ guy has normal clothes. Marc whats your opinion on those videos.

Written By Dmitri on July 10th, 2004 @ 8:29 am

Dmitri, the orange suits are symbolic. The hostages were put in them to symbolize treatment of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Johnson (the guy from NJ) was wearing an orange jumpsuit when he was executed in Saudi Arabia. Kim, the Korean hostage, wore a makeshift orange jumpsuit – if you look at the video or photos, it’s obviously put on backwards. None of the “jumpsuits” the hostages wore were actual US prison jumpsuits. Compare them to photos of prisoners in jumpsuits at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. They’re not the same.

Written By MadBlue on July 10th, 2004 @ 11:32 am

Everything fine about Iraq. Bush intended to save the ass of the iraqi people… But wasn’t he elected to save the asses of the thousands of Americans… which he din’t do by spending more than 1/2 of his time before 9/11 in a damn ranch. He dint even bother to go ahead and get the wtong doer(s)… is that because he has serious ties with the saudi family… Any sane human being will try to protect their own ass before helping save somebody else… IF your damn back is on fire, why lick somebody else’s, before putting this off ????? I wouldn’t do that !! Put Bin laden behind bars, and then Go ahead fuck every assole on earth… 3/4 of Al-Q is in Pakistan, an ally ruled by a dictator, not very different from sadam… 3/4 of Bin laden’s assests is in Saudi, protected by the big saudi lobby here in the US… why Iraq… and why now ??? Somebody here answer this question, and i will make atleast a 100 people vote for bush this election. HONEST !

Written By FirstKnight on August 1st, 2004 @ 12:46 am

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.