Blankenhorn: No Immunity For Bush’s War Crimes

This makes me feel better. I’m not sure if, as a practical matter, it’s completely correct, but I like the sentiment behind it. From Dana Blankenhorn: No immunity for war crimes.

War crimes are like the murders of Lady Macbeth. They don’t wash out. Ever. There is no immunity for war crimes.

What happened in Abu Ghraib was a war crime. What the United States is doing in Iraq right now, probably a war crime. What Bush did with his secret detention centers in Europe and elsewhere, a war crime.

You cannot prosecute a war crime in the country where the leader ruled. If the leader’s people are still there, some chief judge will claim him innocent. Exclude them, limit the trial to the man’s enemies, and you have a show trial, not a real trial. The only way to prosecute a war crime is before a designated international tribunal, like the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

No matter what George W. Bush and his party try to do, that doesn’t change. If he is guilty of war crimes he will go to The Hague. The only hope is to steal this election, steal the next election, and steal every election until all the Bushes are dead of old age.

4 Responses to “Blankenhorn: No Immunity For Bush’s War Crimes”

  1. Steve Says:

    How can this make you feel hopeful? “You cannot prosecute a war crime in the country where the leader ruled.”

    Do you really think any other country in the world will press charges? Do you really think anyone in the US will every press charges? I feel sick to my stomach when I think of the way our country is behaving, and it doesn’t seem like there’s anyone or any group that can make it any better.

  2. TeacherVet Says:

    Heh. Blankenship’s only hope has already been tried twice. That those attempts have been unsuccessful makes me feel better, too. I don’t think he’ll be elected in 2008, though.

    In fact, at this point I’m not optimistic that any Republican will be elected in 2008, although that’s obviously not my hope; I do hope it’s not necessary to achieve that result by stealing it, and I’m quite certain that you do, too. I’m about ready for the internal conflicts to diminish, and that will only be achieved by a Democrat landslide victory.

  3. MoJoe Says:

    How about we propose a Resolution to the General Assembly:

    1. The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.
    2. On the last day of withdrawal, we will release Saddam Hussein in his trial suit with $1,000,000 in his pocket.
    3. If the UN so choses, it may come in before that last date to assist the Iraqi people, Hussein or whoever else they want in any way they want.

    Generally, when we have fought soldiers that believe it is a mitzvah to die, it has caused us trouble, e.g kamakzies, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, Iraqis, etc. Is it possilbe that people that so believe need a leader like Hussein in order to govern? Only people that think like us could come up with or approve, in the middle of a war, a “We’re the other Iraq” campaign.
    And that’s why Hussein hated them. Good sense of humour, photogenic. Can you imgaine any member of Hezbullah making a “… other Lebanon” commercial?

    So, why don’t you ponder the terrible proposition that Hussein was the proper man at the proper time and all War Crimes are not the same.

    Wasn’t it Hussein that had an election and claimed a 99% victory? I believe it.

  4. brane_daed Says:

    “So, why don’t you ponder the terrible proposition that Hussein was the proper man at the proper time and all War Crimes are not the same.”

    Why not just kill everyone there, take the oil, and go? Easy, you have the nukes… Installing Saddam was too nice for those.

    I think the USA shouldn’t interfere with other countries internal and international affairs, unless asked to.

    But Bush will nuke iran anyway, so pass the popcorn.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.