Should American leaders be held to the same standard as

[Chemical Ollie]

I don't read Chomsky, so I'm not sure he said "hanged" in the specific case of Carter, but I've seen a clip on TV, where he said "every American President since WW2 would be found guilty if put against a war crimes court".

That would include Carter, wouldn't it?

And the penalty for severe war crimes is hanging, isn't it? At least it was for Saddam and the Nurnberg suspects.

[Jack_www]

Re: Should American leaders be held to the same standard as

Originally posted by techumseh
Should American leaders be held to the same standard as Saddam Hussien?

These are the four crimes defined by the Allies at Nuremberg:

1. Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression
3. War-Crimes
4. Crimes against humanity

Should American (and British) leaders be held accountable for their conduct during and leading up to the invasion of Iraq in the same way as Saddam Hussien, if proven in a fair and objective trial?

No because the US had a cease fire with Iraq after the end of the first Gulf War, and Saddam violated it a number of times so the US had the legal authority to start the war up again with Iraq. I am not saying it was a good idea, but just that no crime was commited.

[TheStinger]

I will feed the troll

Because

although we should never have invaded, to equate Sadam to bush (or blair) is akin to the left wing apologisng for Stalin

[General Ludd]

I think invading a country, disposing the government, and occupying the country, counts as a war of aggression regardless of what supposedly lead to it (according to legal semantics). Particularily when you consider that Iraq was not even capable of attacking the united states itself.

And Iraq is not the only country this has happened to.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I don't read Chomsky, so I'm not sure he said "hanged" in the specific case of Carter, but I've seen a clip on TV, where he said "every American President since WW2 would be found guilty if put against a war crimes court".

That would include Carter, wouldn't it?

And the penalty for severe war crimes is hanging, isn't it? At least it was for Saddam and the Nurnberg suspects.

ok, I just have to recalibrate my bat**** crazi-o-meter to evaluate chomsky after reading that. It had gone off the scale again.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by TheStinger
I will feed the troll

Because

although we should never have invaded, to equate Sadam to bush (or blair) is akin to the left wing apologisng for Stalin

What has saddam done that is so much worse than the actions commited by first world leaders towards third world countries?

[TheStinger]

I can't remember a first world leader murdering thousands of his own countrymen.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I think invading a country, disposing the government, and occupying the country, counts as a war of aggression regardless of what supposedly lead to it (according to legal semantics). Particularily when you consider that Iraq was not even capable of attacking the united states itself.

And Iraq is not the only country this has happened to.

No it happened to Germany, Italy and several others in world war 2 come to think of it. I think you probably need to tweak that bit where you say "regardless of what supposedly lead to it" unless you really do intend to say that efforts to depose the nazis were wars of aggression.

[General Ludd]

No, they just murders thousands of foreigners instead. That's ok.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Geronimo


No it happened to Germany, Italy and several others in world war 2 come to think of it. I think you probably need to tweak that bit where you say "regardless of what supposedly lead to it" unless you really do intend to say that efforts to depose the nazis were wars of aggression.

I said, regardless of what supposedly lead to it (according to legal semantics) Particularily when you consider that Iraq was not even capable of attacking the united states itself. Are you equating Iraq kicking out weapons inspectors to germany's attempted conquest of europe?

[Victor Galis]

Well, the thing to keep in mind is that Saddam's trial set the bar really low. He was hanged for killing 148 people. Yes, he obviously did far more, but the court found that to be enough. I think there's a lot more world leaders, not widely to be mass murders that have ordered attacks that have caused similar numbers of casualties.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Well, the thing to keep in mind is that Saddam's trial set the bar really low. He was hanged for killing 148 people. Yes, he obviously did far more, but the court found that to be enough. I think there's a lot more world leaders, not widely to be mass murders that have ordered attacks that have caused similar numbers of casualties.

I rarely agree with Noam Chomsky, actually I hate the annoying commie bastard, but he's correct on this: every American President since WW2 would be found guilty if put against a war criminal court.

Name one recent American President who hasn't knowingly ordered the death of 148 innocents?

[Datajack Franit]

0.001/10

[Uncle Sparky]

Gerry Ford ?

I suspect that Dubbya may find it a tad more difficult to travel abroad at the end of his term compared to most the others.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


I rarely agree with Noam Chomsky, actually I hate the annoying commie bastard, but he's correct on this: every American President since WW2 would be found guilty if put against a war criminal court.

Name one recent American President who hasn't knowingly ordered the death of 148 innocents?

Carter and ford