War criminals?

[123everton]

Given the disclosure of information by Wikileaks, should Bush, Blair and their agents (namely the military) be tried as war criminals?
My basis for this question is from our own phrasing of what constitutes a war crime at the Nuremburg trials by Justice Jackson, to sum it up is one that involves kidnapping (check), torture (check) and the killing of civilians (erm, check).
If you want my full views on both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars I'll give them later, but the question is about the nature of the war's prosecution, and it's legality included within it the culpability of the troops on the ground when cited.

[youngmafbog]

Are you serious or is this just anti war retoric ?

[123everton]

No I'm serious, it's not rhetoric, it's question based on the legality of the coalition forces actions as we are ourselve have defined it.
You can hide behind jingoism and patriotism if you really want to, or we can have an adult conversation about what's been happening.

[anotheoldgit]

It is for the victors to meter out justice if it is deemed necessary, always has been and always will be.

If the countries you are accusing the West of committing war crimes against, were to totally win, then I am sure they wouldn't be at all slow in metering out their own type of punishments.
.

[jaydah]

Iraq did same when they invaded Kuwait and by that act, invited retaliation.

[123everton]

AOG, that made very little sense to me at all.
Jaydah, the question is about the rules of engagement, such rules do exist.
Take the killing of civilians, there is on record an incident (sometimes reported as civilians which I feel is mischievous) of militants who have disarmed themselves and offered to surrender, they've got their hands up, the international signal for I surrender.
The pilot was informed that "you can't surrender to a helicopter" so he shot them, he can't even say he was following orders, yes that old chestnut.
Kidnapping, or as it was called "extraordinary rendition" Britain was complicit in this practice on a global scale.
Torture, Abu Gharib (spelling?) we handed over prisoners knowing they'd be tortured (admittedly harder to prove), one of the abuses was to be s o d o m i s e d with a truncheon, a popular form of Paddy bashing in Liverpool during the 70s and 80s.
I'm unsure as to how responsible British forces are for these actions, we're certainly involved in kidnapping, we've investigated torture allegations (proven), as to the killing of civilians I'm yet to see the evidence.

[sandyRoe]

At Nuremburg it was the losers who were in the dock. As Blair said, he'll be judged in the next life. He knows he will never have to face trial for his crimes in this one.

[123everton]

That's not relelvant to the question (winners and losers) it's about international law.
Law as defined by our own counsel acting as prosecution in our own case.
By our own definitions as cited and defined in that case, have we committed war crimes in the prosecution of this conflict?
Mitigation is only useful if we're guilty.....

[TheTruthHere]

Everton when will you give up having a go at Britain, Nuremburg was years ago long before most of us were born.
Things are not set in stone.
Times change in the past it was illegal to have a gay partner now it is ok . We now live in a multi cultural society and you will not always know your enemy.

As Sandy has said the losers end up in the dock.

http://www.guardian.c...ovic-hague-not-guilty

[123everton]

Ok TTH, your answ is a little disconcerting, but, we'll try it your way, by our definition THEN, have we committed a war crime?

[flitty]

Afghanistan gave Blair the reason to pull out of Iraq and not loose face

[TheTruthHere]

Things change ( not always for the better )

Would you like to see all gay people put in jail after all that was the rule years ago ?

[123everton]

TTH, you've completely lost me here.
Is that a yes?
You appear to be scrabbling for analogies where they don't exist.
To clarify do you feel the standard of proof for war crimes has diminished since 1946?
Is that what you lament?

[Bobbisox]

I think Blair and Bush do have blood on their hands but they are so slippery when wet, no one will pin them down for this

[123everton]

Blair and Bush ave to answer for the dossiers that led to the warIot concerning the question with this issue, I'm concerning the question with the policies of our leaders in the prosecution of this conflict and it's subsequent occupation.

[birdie1971]

“... should Bush, Blair and their agents (namely the military) be tried as war criminals?”

Yes.

Both Bush and Blair are, in my opinion, war criminals because they knowingly created a chimera which they both knew to be false. The whole WMD débâcle is so stupid that it would be funny if so many Iraqi and Afghan civilians hadn't been murdered through no fault of their own.

The blatant lies these men told, which lead to deaths of so many, should be punished in the most severe way. How do you atone for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people?

As for 'the Military' - I'm not sure what you mean.

[123everton]

By military I mean the people who did the shooting.
Take the crew of the Apache helicopter (referred to earlier in the thread) they shot people who were surrendering.
I've seen footage of a car getting shot at, stopping the driver gets out with his hands in the air, only to be shot. Now, ok, we don't know what preceded that incident, but he's still given up is that not an issue worthy of further investigation?
I've read reports of troops shooting civilians for sport, I don't entirely believe this, I know that we operate in a certain way within these theatres of the war that to the unitiated could appear that way.